A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming

30 11 2015

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

To campaign for so-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change” in Paris—while grief and fear still prevail, pervade and permeate—is insensitive, inhumane, shameful and repulsive.  It is an affront to the memories of those who died or were injured in the attacks on that great city, to all Parisians who have suffered, to the French people, and to the world.[2]

It is cheap and crass politics at its worst.  No wonder a rising number of Americans and people around the world are rejecting government in general, and their own governments in particular.[3]  George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.[4]

Barack Obama is among the world’s so-called “elites” whose criminal obsession and fanaticism with global warming are threats to civilized life on this planet.  In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.  So-called man-made “global warming” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.”

Terrorists roam France, and the global economy teeters closer to the abyss[5], yet the farcical meeting of misguided Lilliputians and charlatans occurs in Paris.  Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the Earth, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling.  Our Earth has gone through such cycles  for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us and our offspring have left this planet.

It has been reported:

(1)  The “COP-21 climate deal in Paris spells [the] end of the fossil era,”

(2)  ”Much of the fossil industry will go into slow run-off while the new plutocrats will be masters of post-carbon technology,”

(3)  ”[T]he fossil fuel industry of coal, gas, and oil could forfeit $34 trillion in revenues over the next quarter century—a quarter of their income—if the Paris accord is followed by a series of tougher reviews every five years to force down the trajectory of CO2 emissions, as proposed by the United Nations and French officials hosting the talks,”

(4)  ”Most fossil companies would face [a] run-off unless they could reinvent themselves as 21st Century post-carbon leaders,” and

(5)  ”Such a scenario would imply the near extinction of the coal industry unless there is a big push for carbon capture and storage. It also implies a near total switch to electric cars, rendering the internal combustion engine obsolete.”[6]

This only tells part of the story with respect to the estimated $34 trillion swindle or transfer of wealth.[7]  A multitude of class-action lawsuits may spring up globally—against the oil, gas and coal industries, and others who would dare to challenge the “global warming” orthodoxy.  Stark and undemocratic intimidation and scare tactics have begun already, with much more draconian measures to follow.

The Obama presidency cannot end quickly enough.  Many Americans view him as a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who may be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history.  His naïveté has been matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter.[8]

His presidency is considered already by many Americans as a sad watershed in United States history—by blacks and whites alike.[9], Republicans, Independents and members of his own party.  His “global warming” escapade is consistent with that tragically tarnished legacy.  When the next president takes office, what Obama has done in Paris may be reversed; and the entire “global warming” swindle may come crashing down.

© 2015, Timothy D. Naegele

 

global warming swindle

 

_______________________________________________

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/documents/TimothyD.NaegeleResume.pdf). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search: Timothy D. Naegele

Note: The author does not represent anyone or any entity on either side of the “global warming” or “climate change” debate.  The views expressed herein are strictly personal, and not motivated by any personal gain or the prospect thereof.

[2]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/we-are-all-parisians/ (“We Are All Parisians”)

[3]  See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/ (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It”); https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/justice-and-the-law-do-not-mix/ (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix”); https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/the-united-states-department-of-injustice/ (“The United States Department of Injustice”)

[4]  See, e.g.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (“Animal Farm”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7614 (“Doomsday Clock For Global Market Crash Strikes One Minute To Midnight As Central Banks Lose Control“); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/global-chaos-and-helter-skelter/ (“Global Chaos And Helter Skelter”)

[6]  See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12021394/COP-21-climate-deal-in-Paris-spells-end-of-the-fossil-era.html (“COP-21 climate deal in Paris spells end of the fossil era”)

[7]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7771 (“The Flat Earth Society, Environmental Nazis Are At It Again, Bigtime”)

[8]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)

[9]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/edward-w-brooke-is-dead/#comment-7434 (“Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It“)


Actions

Information

65 responses

30 11 2015
pappyvanwinkle

You are free to have your opinion on Obama, but why do you care if we ditch fossil fuels for alternative power sources? You’re for the sanctions on Russia and you’ve enjoyed how their economy has dilapidated, so why again do you feel the need to subjugate Obama because he supports an end to oil dependence?

It seems like a conflict of interest. The only people who are upset at a possible switch to alternative energy are people who are living off their mineral rights.

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

First, the United States is the dominant energy producer in the world today, and essentially energy independent. With the Middle East imploding, and far far worse yet to come there, a whole series of markets will open up for our energy products (e.g., China, Europe). In turn, this will produce American jobs and buoy our economy, in the face of economic “headwinds” that may devastate other parts of the world.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7614 (“Doomsday Clock For Global Market Crash Strikes One Minute To Midnight As Central Banks Lose Control“)

Second, with Putin and Russia imploding, the markets for our energy products will only increase. Barack Obama cares nothing about any of this. Indeed, for him to take any credit at all for our energy “boom” is ludicrous. He has fought it every step of the way, including his consistent opposition to the Keystone Pipeline.

Third, if you just read one set of comments, and all of the articles cited there, you will see that the science about “global warming” is settled: it is a total hoax, and simply wealth redistribution . . . to the tune of $34 trillion or more.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7771 (“The Flat Earth Society, Environmental Nazis Are At It Again, Bigtime”); see also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12025836/Paris-climate-conference-10-reasons-why-we-shouldnt-worry-about-man-made-global-warming.html (“Paris climate conference: 10 reasons why we shouldn’t worry about ‘man-made’ global warming”)

Fourth, Obama is a total fraud. If Americans had bothered to read and comprehend his core beliefs as set forth in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” they would not have elected him, or so I believe. Our great nation is polarized today because of him. He is a divider, not a uniter. He does not share American values.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

With all due respect, your last paragraph is not worthy of a response.

24 11 2016
ggda70

Excellent article/post. I am a scientist and follower of the Global Warming/Climate Change/Alternative Energy nonsense targeted at us and the rest of the world by the ruling class. The majority of predictive climate changes described by the media are fabrications and/or partial comments taken out of context. They are the only response Progressives can muster as the data contradicts them at all turns. I commend you for the time you took to prepare this post, and have only one request: Please find a way to get this information, and your opinions, to the President-Elect. Mr. Trump. He and his advisers need to know this, and welcome these data. Thank you.

24 11 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your kind words and other comments.

I agree with your conclusions completely, and encourage you to read all of the comments beneath the article above.

Also, there is nothing “progressive” about the Left.

It is my belief that the President-elect and his new administration will scuttle the “global warming” pact. Like the TPP, without American support, it will die a natural death. 🙂

24 11 2016
ggda70

I agree about the Progressives, i.e. they are not progressive at al! I made my suggestion about Trump based on my almost 3 years in the Executive Office of the President in Washington (Nixon). I know how difficult it is to not only get, but maintain the attention of a President, and/or his staff. Your experience – far more current than mine – would seem to be important relative to this. Just a thought!

24 11 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again.

I believe the President-elect and his key staff members (e.g., Kellyanne Conway) are riveted on a few issues, like lasers; and the hoax of so-called man-made “global warming”—and the estimated $34 trillion wealth transfer—is one of them.

The President-elect has criticized the use of Air Force One continually, as an antiquated, fuel-guzzling albatross. He outfitted “Trump One” with up-to-date Rolls Royce engines (see, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/boycott-the-gop-and-ignore-foreign-naysayers/#comment-8307 (“Trump’s Plane And Pilot”)); and the replacement White House planes are in the pipeline already.

At best, he is a skeptic of man-made climate change—if not an outright denier. However, he does not believe in gross pollution of the atmosphere, inter alia, which is what happened when Obama and other world “leaders” assembled in Paris right after the tragic killings there.

In my article above and comments beneath it, I have discussed the farce that the Paris conference represented. The President-elect and his key staff members are well aware of this.

1 12 2015
Barnes

You, like other advocates of alternatives like wind and solar, fail to recognize that those technologies are not possible without fossil fuels, from cradle to grave. What energy source do you propose to power the machinery required to mine the raw materials needed for their manufacture, transportation, manufacturing, construction, and decommisioning? Wind and solar can not supply sufficiently reliable energy that can be used build more turbines and solar panels along with all the components required for their construction and operation, plus the fossil fuel required to back up wind and solar for those times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

1 12 2015
PalomaGenios

This is the first article Title I ever read wherein all is required is to scroll right to the Comments section and tell you are absolutely and precisely correct.

I’ll read the finer points later. But the end will be the same result. We are being governed by a world of criminals and the only just punishment would be to pack them all into a 747 jumbo and strap a couple of Atlas rocket boosters to its side and point it to Mars. They’ll have a great and robust discussion about climate change en route.

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always.

Perhaps Elon Musk will “coordinate” their travel, and join them. 🙂

1 12 2015
Richard Hameroff

Excellent post Timothy. Spot on as usual.. How this criminal has stayed in office without impeachment is one of the world’s greatest mysteries.

Rick

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, as always.

After trying to impeach Bill Clinton—and succeeding in the House, but failing in the Senate—the GOP became very “gun shy” and reticent.

Also, they did not have the stomach to impeach America’s “first black president,” regardless of what he did.

He is probably “Teflon-coated” during the balance of his presidency; and he knows this, and will use it to his advantage.

1 12 2015
PalomaGenios

Well Richard. ..
…they programmed him into position….and they will program him out;..once they’re done with him destroying the infastructure.
If you are not a praying man…this might be your cue to start.

GA

1 12 2015
Richard Hameroff

I suppose that was a rhetorical question I posed. I believe that he indeed is trying, and succeeding, in dismantling the American way of life. The family unit has fallen victim, because it was targeted. Race relations are at 1960s status, or worse because Obama wanted it this way. The economy is hanging on by a bubble and a thread, and Obama continues his relentless pursuit of his ridiculous Green initiative. The list of atrocities committed by this administration goes on and on…

Timothy, as much as I despise Obama, obviously, he is not the only one to blame. The liberal media, as well as the Republicans seem to enable him.. Surely, there must have been something that could have been done to shut him down.. Why haven’t they? What is the true evil behind this man? Is this indeed a conspiracy? And if so, whom is truly behind it??

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

Just as there is a “Perfect Storm” gathering with respect to global economic conditions, so too we may be witnessing a “Perfect Storm” with respect to the breakdown of government at all levels—and the belief in, and respect for government.

It is happening with regard to our judiciary, which is truly corrupt and lawless. It is happening in Washington, as always. It is pervasive. If—or perhaps when—the global economic storm hits with a vengeance, it may be truly chaotic.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/global-chaos-and-helter-skelter/ (“Global Chaos And Helter Skelter”)

The only thing worse would be an EMP Attack on America.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive”)

Yes, this is doom and gloom; and I believe in our great nation and all Americans to my very core.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”)

1 12 2015
Richard

So,at this point, what do you think the future holds?

And on another topic,how do you feel about the Trump phenomenon, and inevitability of him becoming the nominee? Surely,he is a byproduct of Americas disgust for the establishment. Nevertheless, very real.

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

It is anyone’s guess. However, the global economy is not in good shape, and the worst is yet to come.

I like Trump and will vote for him. He may become America’s next president.

Hillary Clinton may self-destruct.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-7185 (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Will she become America’s first lesbian president?

1 12 2015
Richard

“Will she become America’s first lesbian president?”

Ewww, I certainly hope not.She is another criminal, along with Slick Willy.. Personally, I think Obama will slowly release damning information, and ultimately tank her allowing prosecution by the AG.
I have good friends that are liberals, and they are seriously considering Trump, as would I. Trump definitely was poking fun at that disabled reporter, but I can’t bring myself around to be upset at at him for that, or any other of the over the top things he has said.. I actually like the unfiltered humanity, that pours out of that man.. I do support him, but Ted Cruz would be my second choice, or a wonderful VP.

Some say Biden is waiting on the sidelines,ready to step in. I hope that is the case, because that would make it easier for any Republican nominee to win..

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

You may be correct that she will be prosecuted.

See http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261582-fbi-chief-is-wild-card-for-clinton (“FBI chief is wild card for Clinton”)

If so, you are right: Biden might jump in.

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Marie Antoinette’s Merry Band Of Elitist Warmers [UPDATED]

Warmers Dine On Haute Cuisine

It is altogether fitting and proper that Barack Obama and his fellow “global warmers” would dine lavishly in Paris on their taxpayers’ monies, just as Marie Antoinette was the quintessential representative of class conflict and western decadence.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, they will share similar fates—which, too, might be fitting and proper . . . inasmuch as Obama and his fellow warmers have embarked on the greatest wealth redistribution scheme in human history, to the tune of $34 trillion or more.

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/11/30/when-in-paris-president-obama-has-a-working-dinner-at-three-star-eatery/; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette#Trial_and_execution_.2814.E2.80.9316_October_1793.29 and http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2015/12/01/20151201_012508.htm and http://www.wsj.com/articles/well-always-have-the-illusions-of-paris-1449015377 (“The climate talks will have zero impact on global temperatures”—”[N]othing that emerges from Paris will have a discernible effect on world temperatures”) and http://www.dickmorris.com/the-climate-change-solution-obama-refuses-to-take-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/ (“[The United States is] the world capital of natural gas”) and http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud (“James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud'”) and http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-climate-of-conformity-1450048095 (“Paris Climate of Conformity”—”[I]f climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it”—”Mr. Obama plans to use Paris as a stick to beat Republicans even as he ducks a vote in Congress”) and http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article50172810.html (“Report: Price of Obama getaways $70 million so far, and counting”); but see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12065274/OPEC-faces-a-mortal-threat-from-electric-cars.html (“Opec faces a mortal threat from electric cars“) and http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-exxon-global-warming-20160120-story.html (“California to investigate whether Exxon Mobil lied about climate-change risks“) and http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-snow-job-1453664732 (“The Climate Snow Job“)

For those who suggest that the world’s “scientific community” is fully onboard in supporting “global warming,” this is utter nonsense and psychobabble.

The issue is not about the facts. It is a pure wealth redistribution effort on a mind-boggling scale. Once one realizes that, it all makes perfect sense why this is being done.

The issue is M-O-N-E-Y, not science.

Scientists are “whores” who are bought and sold each and every day, just like lawyers and other so-called “professionals.” They are intimidated and ostracized if they do not get fully behind the “global warming” hoax (e.g., losing their grant monies, reputations).

Because there is at least $34 trillion at stake, these individuals are corrupted in the most insidious and unprecedented ways, yet they have the gall to profess that they are pure as the driven snow.

. . .

When the next American president takes office, what Barack Obama has done in Paris may be reversed; and the entire “global warming” swindle may come crashing down.

Indeed, on the first day in office, much of what Obama has done may be undone, inter alia, by reason of executive orders and the like.

Obama’s legacy may be “fleeting” at best, or non-existent.

Also, none of the countries that participated in the Paris conference have factored in the effects—much less the full effects—of (1) terrorist activities globally; (2) the immigration issue that is tearing Europe apart; (3) the implosion that is taking place in the Middle East, with much worse yet to come; or (4) the coming worldwide economic storm—which will make the entire “global warming” debate nothing more than an irrelevant sideshow, blip and footnote in history.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7614 (“Doomsday Clock For Global Market Crash Strikes One Minute To Midnight As Central Banks Lose Control“)

. . .

Again, the Paris accord is all about money and the accretion of power, and wealth redistribution, not about science.

Science is merely used as a “cover.”

This is a fulfillment of George Orwell’s foreboding as set forth in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

. . .

It is amazing how so many “warmer” wackos come out for a discussion like this. They are like a pack of rabid animals.

12 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The Truth About Global Warming [UPDATED]

Flat Earth

Since the so-called “Paris Agreement” has been adopted, the following facts need to be trumpeted far and wide:

It is not hyperbole to say that man-made “global warming” is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated since our planet was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, and Man set foot on the Earth.

It is a wealth redistribution scheme in the amount of $34 trillion or more, and accretion of power by the “warmer” elites—which would make Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and other tyrants in history blanch. Never in their wildest dreams did they contemplate such power.

George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals. Without knowing it precisely, he described the “climate talks” in Paris.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming”)

So-called man-made “global warming” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.”

Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the planet, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling. Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us—and our inheritors—have left this planet.

For those who suggest that the world’s “scientific community” is fully onboard in supporting “global warming,” this is utter nonsense and psychobabble. In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

When the next American president takes office, what Barack Obama has done may be reversed; and the entire man-made “global warming” swindle may come crashing down.

Also, none of the countries that participated in the Paris conference have factored in the full effects of (1) terrorist activities globally; (2) the immigration issue that is tearing Europe apart; (3) the implosion that is taking place in the Middle East, with much worse yet to come; or (4) the coming worldwide economic storm—which will make the entire “global warming” debate nothing more than an irrelevant sideshow, blip and footnote in history.

Please do so.

1 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Poll: 91 Percent Of Americans Are Not Worried About Global Warming [UPDATED]

Global warming swindle

Michael Bastasch has reported for the Daily Caller:

As Iowans prepare to vote for presidential candidates, a new poll has surfaced showing once again the vast majority of Americans don’t rank global warming as the most serious issue facing the country.

A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent. The biggest concern for Americans was global terrorism — 28 percent of Americans polled listed this as their top issue.

Despite a big PR push by President Barack Obama to tout his administration’s global warming agenda, most Americans have been unconvinced it’s the country’s most pressing issue. A Fox News poll from November found only 3 percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern.

The Fox poll came out just before Obama met other world leaders in Paris to kick off another round of negotiations for an international treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions. After weeks of haggling, United Nations delegates agreed to non-binding emissions cuts.

Then, government scientists declared 2015 the warmest year on record. This news only emboldened politicians and environmental activists who want to build public support for more regulations on fossil fuels.

“In Paris, the entire world acted as one by agreeing to a universal climate accord that set an expiration date on fossil fuels–but now we must pick up the pace,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, fossil fuel corporations are doing everything they can to hang on to their profits as long as possible,” Brune said. “Largely as a result, if one of the leading Republican candidates were to be elected President of the United States, they would be the only head of state on earth to oppose global climate action.”

But Brune’s insistence that Republican lawmakers and corporations are responsible for keeping the American public ignorant of the dangers of global warming doesn’t seem to be backed up by the polling data.

Polls have consistently shown global warming never ranks high on the American public’s radar. A CNN poll from January 2015 found that 57 percent of Americans did not expect global warming to threaten their way of life.

“Meanwhile, only 50 percent of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions, while 23 percent say it’s caused by natural changes and 26 percent say it isn’t a proven fact,” CNN reported.

A Gallup poll from March 2015 found Americans’ concern about global warming fell to the same level it was in 1989. Global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns — only 32 percent said they worried about it a “great deal.”

“Importantly, even as global warming has received greater attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in recent years, Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989,” Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones wrote.

See http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/ (emphasis added); see also http://iceagenow.info/record-cold-antarctica/ (“Record cold in Antarctica“)

Again, it is not hyperbole to say that so-called man-made “global warming”—or “climate change,” or “The Great Green Con”—is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated since our planet was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, and Man set foot on the Earth.

It is a wealth redistribution scheme in the amount of $34 trillion or more, and accretion of power by the “warmer” elites. In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the planet, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling. Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us—and our inheritors—have left this planet.

. . .

However, it has been reported that the totally corrupt Obama administration has “discussed” the possibility of taking civil action against “climate change” deniers. The fascist Obama-ites should be indicted by the next administration, as soon as they leave office.

See http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/ (“Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has ‘discussed’ taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for ‘denying’ the ‘threat of carbon emissions’ when it comes to climate change”)

7 06 2016
Ron Michaels

More than a dozen states’ Attorneys General announced in the first week of June, 2016, that they will pursue legal actions against any corporation denying the Global Warming issue. This cabal of legal eagles stressed that the penalties to companies identified as Global Warming “deniers” will be harsh. Are citizens next in line?

On You Tube, “George Carlin on global warming” is a respite. A little “time out” from a nightmare that seems to have no end.

It frightens me when politicians say that everything Obama has done will be repealed on the first day of a new presidency. Can’t we keep that a secret? Is it too late? Does he know? The only way to prevent that from happening is for him to stick around. Yet, everyone seems to believe that Obama is leaving when his term is over. Really?

7 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ron, for your comments.

Yes, I am well aware of the AG’s threats and actions.

Regarding Obama’s future, I have believed for some time that he will be “angling” for another job when he leaves office, possibly with the UN.

Time will tell.

3 09 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Global Warming Swindle Continues As The Failed Obama Presidency Sputters To An End

Global warming swindle

The Wall Street Journal has reported:

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday outlined new plans for expanding their joint efforts on climate change, showcasing one of the few areas of agreement in an otherwise tense relationship between the two leaders.

U.S. officials detailed the agreement reached by Messrs. Obama and Xi ahead of what is likely to be their final meeting before a new president enters the White House in January.

The new steps include formal adoption by both the U.S. and China of the international climate-change agreement reached in Paris in December 2015, as well as a road map for achieving emissions reductions in commercial aircraft and for phasing out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, a potent group of gases that are linked to climate change but aren’t covered by the Paris agreement.

The moves cap three years of efforts by Messrs. Obama and Xi to advance climate-change initiatives, following their first meeting as presidents in 2013.

The White House has touted the climate cooperation as a vital form of leadership the two biggest economies have sought to demonstrate for the rest of the world, where developed and developing countries often are at odds. The administration has given a high priority to climate collaboration with Beijing at a time when the two countries have struggled to see eye-to-eye on other economic issues, such as trade, investment rules and exchange rates. The countries have also faced tensions over military affairs and cybersecurity.

Brian Deese, a senior White House adviser, said that the U.S. and China have come “full circle” on climate change with the Paris agreement announcement.

The durability of the U.S. commitments largely hinge on November’s presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump have taken opposite positions on climate change.

Mrs. Clinton has said she would continue Mr. Obama’s climate-change agenda. Mr. Trump has promised to roll back Mr. Obama’s climate-change measures, questioning the scientific findings behind them.

The formal adoption of the climate-change agreement by the U.S. and China is designed to encourage other nations to formally adopt the Paris pact, helping it enter into force as early as this year, Mr. Deese said, noting that, together, the two countries represent roughly 38% of the world’s emissions.

U.S. negotiators pressed hard last year to structure the Paris agreement in such a way that the countries’ individual targets for greenhouse-gas emissions after 2020 wouldn’t be binding. Any agreement with legally binding targets and the threat of international sanctions would have required the approval of the Republican-controlled Congress, officials said.

Despite criticism from the European Union and other countries that wanted binding targets, the final Paris deal adopted a looser mechanism that requires countries to issue targets and disclose their progress along the way, with the aim of using peer pressure and world-wide attention to win compliance.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from the coal-producing state of Kentucky, and other GOP lawmakers have attacked Mr. Obama for pursuing the Paris deal without consulting Congress. Democratic lawmakers largely back the deal.

“With respect to the legal form of the agreement, the United States has a long and well-established process for approving executive agreements, that is, a legal form which is distinct from treaties, which are approved through the advice and consent process in the Senate,” Mr. Deese said.

The U.S. and China also expressed support for a prospective deal this year on limited international aircraft emissions through the International Civil Aviation Organization, a branch of the United Nations which is drafting a global standard for airline carbon emissions.

Emissions from aircraft represent about 2% of total global carbon emissions, and the U.S. is the largest contributor to global aviation greenhouse gases, according to federal data.

The two countries agreed as well to support negotiations this year to freeze and phase down the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases used as refrigerants in place of chlorofluorocarbons, which were blamed for their major role in depleting the ozone layer. The HFC deal would be an amendment to a pact known as the Montreal Protocol, which entered into force in 1989.

Environmental advocates hailed the U.S.-Chinese agreement, saying a once unimaginable area of cooperation had become the brightest spot in the relationship between the two countries.

“When the two largest emitters lock arms to solve climate change, that is when you know we are on the right track,” said David Waskow, international climate director for the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank in Washington. ”Never before have these two countries worked so closely together to address a global challenge.”

Meanwhile, there was some tension upon the Americans’ arrival here on Saturday, as Chinese officials placed some restrictions on the press corps traveling with Mr. Obama.

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-agree-on-implementing-paris-climate-change-pact-1472896645 (“U.S., China Agree on Implementing Paris Climate-Change Pact“) (emphasis added)

As stated in my article above, “A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming”:

George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

Barack Obama is among the world’s so-called “elites” whose criminal obsession and fanaticism with global warming are threats to civilized life on this planet. In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too. So-called man-made “global warming” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.”

Terrorists roam France, and the global economy teeters closer to the abyss, yet the farcical meeting of misguided Lilliputians and charlatans occurs in Paris. Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the Earth, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling. Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us and our offspring have left this planet.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (emphasis in original)

This is another lawless act by Barack Obama as his failed presidency ends, which must be undone on Day One of the Trump presidency.

In addition to indicting Hillary Clinton, ending Obamacare and reversing countless other executive orders, this “climate change” swindle must end abruptly and unceremoniously.

All treaties must receive Senate approval. The failed Obama never bothered.

Also, man-made “global warming” is a hoax and a figment of the imagination of the far-Left aka “environmental Nazis.”

This is a $34 trillion swindle or wealth transfer that must not stand. It is criminal, and certainly consistent with Hillary Clinton’s criminality.

4 09 2016
Ron Michaels

9/2/16 A group of highly respected scientists recently assembled and agreed with your contention that “global warming” is a fraud. It’s reminiscent of the hysteria from the administration and its followers over what they call “Assault Rifles” and the need to ban them and confiscate those in circulation.

The FBI’s and CDC’s recent Report on Gun Deaths states, “Those who use the words, ‘Assault Rifles’ are using the wrong term.” Rifles available today are merely target rifles and hunting rifles decorated to look military but they have absolutely no military capabilities.” This eye-opening report also states that of all deaths where firearms are involved, rifles are only present in 2%.

The report further emphasizes that almost ALL deaths involving firearms — 99.4% — are attributable to only three causes: suicides represent more than 60% of all firearms deaths; black-on-black murders (the CDC’s term) account for more than 30% of all deaths by firearms; and domestic violence represents almost 4% of the rest. These numbers strongly suggest that there are few possibilities for firearms to be even remotely as ominous as the administration continues to suggest.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another Government Agency, lists all causes of death in the United States each year and ranks them based on total number of deaths precipitated by each cause. Firearms are ranked as the 107th greatest cause of death. Automobile accidents cause more deaths than all firearms combined. The flu and the measles, and 106 other causes of death, EACH kill more people every year than all the deaths caused by all firearms COMBINED.

The FBI and CDC also report that “mass shootings” are extremely rare. The FBI will not use the label, “mass shooting” unless there are at least four (4) people who lose their lives in each “mass” event. The FBI reports that when a weapon of any kind and any caliber is fired, even though there may be no death, no injury, and no damage, the missfire still is listed as a “mass shooting” by the White House and the Justice Department and will appear in the nationally reported tallys of “mass shootings.”

This type of behavior, these mischaracterizations of the truth by this administration, are malevolent manifestations of the dedication of this president and his appointees to confiscate personal weapons of our citizens and destroy this country. I don’t believe he will leave. If Hillary is unable to serve, it is my judgment that POTUS will simply lock the doors in the White House and challenge everybody to try to dislodge him. I hope I’m wrong.

4 09 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ron, for you comments.

I agree with them, except for the last two sentences. I believe he will leave, without any problems.

While he is lawless in many respects, I do not believe he is prepared to invoke a constitutional crisis by overstaying his term in office.

With respect to guns, one of my other articles (and the comments beneath it) mirrors your comments.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/ (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns”)

2 06 2017
Rick

Love this guy..

2 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks, Rick. 🙂

6 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

World Leaders Duped By Manipulated Global Warming Data

Global warming swindle

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.

Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.

However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.

The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.

One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on skeptics.

Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’

Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.

The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.

This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.

In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.

However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.

Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.

Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.

President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.

President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.

‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’

He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.

Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’

Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’

It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.

As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.

Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards.

Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.

Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.

Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?

And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html (“Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data“) (emphasis added; charts and video omitted)

So-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.” It is a $34 trillion swindle or transfer of wealth.

In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us and our offspring have left this planet.

28 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Signs Order Sweeping Away Obama-Era Climate Policies

Global warming swindle

Reuters has reported:

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to undo a slew of Obama-era climate change regulations that his administration says is hobbling oil drillers and coal miners, a move environmental groups have vowed to take to court.

The decree’s main target is former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan that required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants – a critical element in helping the United States meet its commitments to a global climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015.

The so-called “Energy Independence” order also reverses a ban on coal leasing on federal lands, undoes rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas production, and reduces the weight of climate change and carbon emissions in policy and infrastructure permitting decisions.

“I am taking historic steps to lift restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations,” Trump said at the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters, speaking on a stage lined with coal miners.

The wide-ranging order is the boldest yet in Trump’s broader push to cut environmental regulation to revive the drilling and mining industries, a promise he made repeatedly during the presidential campaign. But energy analysts and executives have questioned whether the moves will have a big effect on their industries, and environmentalists have called them reckless.

“I cannot tell you how many jobs the executive order is going to create but I can tell you that it provides confidence in this administration’s commitment to the coal industry,” Kentucky Coal Association president Tyler White told Reuters.

Trump signed the order with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Vice President Mike Pence by his side.

U.S. presidents have aimed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, which triggered soaring prices. But the United States still imports about 7.9 million barrels of crude oil a day, almost enough meet total oil demand in Japan and India combined.

While Trump’s administration has said reducing environmental regulation will create jobs, some green groups have countered that rules supporting clean energy have done the same.

The number of jobs in the U.S. wind power industry rose 32 percent last year while solar power jobs rose by 25 percent, according to a Department of Energy study.

‘ASSAULT ON AMERICAN VALUES’

Environmental groups hurled scorn on Trump’s order, arguing it is dangerous and goes against the broader global trend toward cleaner energy technologies.

“These actions are an assault on American values and they endanger the health, safety and prosperity of every American,” said billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, the head of activist group NextGen Climate.

Green group Earthjustice was one of many organizations that said it will fight the order both in and out of court. “This order ignores the law and scientific reality,” said its president, Trip Van Noppen.

An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that human use of oil and coal for energy is a main driver of climate change, causing a damaging rise in sea levels, droughts, and more frequent violent storms.

But Trump and several members of his administration have doubts about climate change, and Trump promised during his campaign to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, arguing it would hurt U.S. business.

Since being elected Trump has been mum on the Paris deal and the executive order does not address it.

Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change who helped broker the Paris accord, lamented Trump’s order.

“Trying to make fossil fuels remain competitive in the face of a booming clean renewable power sector, with the clean air and plentiful jobs it continues to generate, is going against the flow of economics,” she said.

The order will direct the EPA to start a formal “review” process to undo the Clean Power Plan, which was introduced by Obama in 2014 but was never implemented in part because of legal challenges brought by Republican-controlled states.

The Clean Power Plan required states to collectively cut carbon emissions from power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Some 85 percent of U.S. states are on track to meet the targets despite the fact the rule has not been implemented, according to Bill Becker, director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a group of state and local air pollution control agencies.

Trump’s order also lifts the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management’s temporary ban on coal leasing on federal property put in place by Obama in 2016 as part of a review to study the program’s impact on climate change and ensure royalty revenues were fair to taxpayers.

It also asks federal agencies to discount the cost of carbon in policy decisions and the weight of climate change considerations in infrastructure permitting, and reverses rules limiting methane leakage from oil and gas facilities.

See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-energy-idUSKBN16Z1L6 (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“)

27 04 2017
Ron Michaels

Climate change has been debunked so many times by independent, qualified, experienced, professional scientists that it’s getting to be exhausting just listening to the continuing barrage of propaganda from the Left. It’s like telling a group of children to stop beating themselves in the head with a baseball bat while they just look at you and laugh. You begin to wonder if they know something you don’t until you sit back and realize that they are the blind trying to lead the sighted.

27 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Well said, Ron. Thank you.

Again, it reminds one of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (“Animal Farm”)

29 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Shame Of Man-Made Global Warming Has A New Adherent

Bret Stephens

Former anti-Trump Wall Street Journal writer, noted Israel Firster and Islamophobe, and most recently a New York Times writer, Bret Stephens has stated:

When someone is honestly 55 percent right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60 percent right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God.

But what’s to be said about 75 percent right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100 percent right? Whoever says he’s 100 percent right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.

— An old Jew of Galicia

In the final stretch of last year’s presidential race, Hillary Clinton and her team thought they were, if not 100 percent right, then very close.

Right on the merits. Confident in their methods. Sure of their chances. When Bill Clinton suggested to his wife’s advisers that, considering Brexit, they might be underestimating the strength of the populist tide, the campaign manager, Robby Mook, had a bulletproof answer: The data run counter to your anecdotes.

That detail comes from “Shattered,” Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes’s compulsively readable account of Clinton’s 2016 train wreck. Mook belonged to a new breed of political technologists with little time for retail campaigning and limitless faith in the power of models and algorithms to minimize uncertainty and all but predict the future.

“Mook and his ‘Moneyball’ approach to politics rankled the old order of political operatives and consultants because it made some of their work obsolete,” Allen and Parnes write about the campaign’s final days. “The memo that one Hillary adviser had sent months earlier warning that they should add three or four points to Trump’s poll position was a distant memory.”

There’s a lesson here. We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris. From Robert McNamara to Lehman Brothers to Stronger Together, cautionary tales abound.

We ought to know this by now, but we don’t. Instead, we respond to the inherent uncertainties of data by adding more data without revisiting our assumptions, creating an impression of certainty that can be lulling, misleading and often dangerous. Ask Clinton.

With me so far? Good. Let’s turn to climate change.

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html (“Climate of Complete Certainty“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/#comment-7908 (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/boycott-the-gop-and-ignore-foreign-naysayers/#comment-7960 (“More Trash Talk About Donald Trump From Bret Stephens“)

Predictably, the fascist Left and Eco-Nazis have attacked one of their own, Stephens, viciously—and have urged the New York Times to fire him.

See http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/times-columnist-blasted-by-nasty-left-for-climate-change-piece/ (“Times columnist blasted by ‘nasty left’ for climate change piece“)

30 04 2017
Ron Michaels

Bret Stephens likes to “watch” himself talk. He’s fascinated by his carefully thought-out turns of phrase. But people are smarter now. They see clearly that what used to be “Global Warming” now is “Climate Change.” How convenient. When one scenario didn’t work he merely changed the name and the Legend. When zealots have a boat that won’t float they merely change its name and restructure the definitions of terminology to fit. It delays the sinking. But it’s just a switch from one absurdity to another. Even the most rabid supporters of climate disaster agree that many generations will pass before the earth sees even slight changes in the environment. The reaction most people have today demonstrates that deniers (as they’re called) have awakened. Their skepticism has been rewarded. No longer is Climate Change a significant issue to anyone other than those who are too locked in to the Climate myth to change. In 2016 even the United Nations office for Climate Change announced that “Climate Change is a hoax.” Apparently the most ardent supporters of the theory have chosen not to get the message. In fact, the trophy accomplishment of the Climate Change zealots, the Paris Climate Change Agreement, has not survived international scrutiny and will be vacated by the United States.

As for the presidential election, research is as research does. Clinton and Friends decided that they wanted to re-label falsehoods as “facts.” They structured their research to produce the output that would validate their propaganda. For example, they wanted the voters to believe that “only 43% of research respondents approved of President Donald Trump’s performance.” That was a lie destined for fame. To make it true, they built a question around that result and confirmed it as truth. How? The research questionnaire was distributed to a small group of 75 Democrats. When the same questionnaire was provided to 75 Republicans the result was an 87% approval rating. That’s one of the ways “research” can prove what the research chooses. The mistake the Clinton campaign made was not the lying, it was actually believing their own false research. They were so thrilled with the way the research output looked and sounded that they didn’t turn off the bubble machine. They kept quoting the same research results. The researchers and the Clinton campaign forgot that they were the ones who produced the answer before they designed the question. They shared their bogus research results with the “Main Stream Media” who lock-stepped it in a closed loop right back to the Clinton researchers. It was the perfect manifestation of “The Magic Mirror.” It’s astonishing when your original research results are confirmed by your own research results published by an “independent” source that you supplied. Simple. The Clinton researchers, in turn, threw more fuel on the flaming mess, magnified it, and ejected it into the public consciousness for distribution to Joe Six Pack as truth. It wasn’t accepted.

Additionally, the Democrats had primed its “voting machine” to produce more Democrat votes than there were people but they saw they didn’t have to pull the trigger on that cannon. They had the election wrapped up without the need to go nuclear and use voter fraud. Some Clinton voter fraud sneaked through but it was done by those who didn’t get the memo. Clinton’s vote gatherers finally were ordered to stop filling out all the blank ballots and just sit and watch the carnage. They told everyone that Trump was going down in a way that would be “humiliating.” Then reality struck when Trump began his historic state-by-state victory run. Panic took over. The Democrats stacked the deck in Los Angeles and New York and the voters gave the rest of the country to Trump. A resounding defeat for Clinton and her hidden emails. At this point, the campaign wise guys pulled the trigger on the voter-fraud “machine.” Too late. Clinton vote counts, after the election, tallied approximately 250k new votes for Clinton per week for a month after Clinton conceded. For months the campaign bellowed that “Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes.” No, she didn’t. All the “extra” votes came after the election was over and they came from just two places: Los Angeles and New York (the Clinton campaign failed to point that out).

And that’s where the Electoral College vividly demonstrated its indisputable value as a referee and final arbiter. Hopelessly, the Clinton campaign limped through the aftermath of the dangerous game they played. The blade they swung so carelessly during the heady, myopic euphoria of the campaign was discovered to have had a very sharp edge that cut both ways. All that remains of their folly are the headless remnants of the Democrat candidate and her hapless campaign managers. None of whom accept responsibility for planning and implementing the most disastrous political failure in the history of the United States of America. Months after the election the Democrats still look for a scapegoat for such a monumental political disaster. When last sighted, the Clinton campaign and all of the Democrats in Congress and across the country were claiming it was the Russians who helped Trump defeat Clinton. A simple replay of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football.

30 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ron, for your additional comments. I agree completely.

You have succinctly and articulately set out the facts, and analyzed them; and you are to be commended. Well done. 🙂

26 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Global Warming Is A Hoax: Here’s Why

Global warming swindle

Political pundit and former advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton has summarized the discussion well, in a video that is worth watching—which is consistent with my article above, and my comments beneath it.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/global-warming-hoax-heres-lunch-alert/

1 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Paris Is D-E-A-D! [UPDATED]

The “environmental Nazis” and “eco-rabble” lost. The American people have won!

See also http://www.nysun.com/foreign/improbable-bedfellows-suddenly-start-to-emerge/89997/ (“Improbable Bedfellows
Are Suddenly Emerging Onto the World Stage”—”[The Paris Accord was an] ‘assault on the capitalist system'”—”The president of the United States spoke the truth, and the world will be grateful to him for it. The United States is back to 1994 levels of carbon dioxide emissions and has been eminently responsible and a world leader in rolling back dependence on carbon. The world temperature has risen one centigrade degree in 82 years, and if every target of the Paris Agreement were met, the effect on the world’s temperature to the end of this century would be about one fifth of one centigrade degree. . . . Donald Trump is the emperor who pointed out that the eco-rabble have no clothes”
) and http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-constitutional-climate/89996/ (“The Constitutional Climate“) and https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord (“The 11 Dumbest Reactions to Trump Quitting the Paris Climate Accord“) and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/business/dealbook/trump-climate-small-businesses.html?_r=0 (“Small Businesses Cheer ‘New Sheriff in Town’ After Climate Pact Exit”—”[W]alking away from the Paris agreement was just another example of a bottom-line business decision made by a president who knows a good deal from a bad one”—”[C]ompanies that employ up to a few hundred workers — such companies make up 99 percent of businesses in the United States and account for half of its private sector employment — are held to a more onerous standard than their larger peers when it comes to complying with regulations”—”To some small business executives, seeing the president talk tough to the Europeans and the Chinese was a reminder of why they voted for him in the first place”); but see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html (“Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement”—”But he will stick to the withdrawal process laid out in the Paris agreement. . . . That could take nearly four years to complete, meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters in the next presidential election”)

6 06 2017
Joe Madrid

I found you again! Saw a comment you posted on TE. (Economist). The Dick Morris short was good–I keep links like it to add to comments I make about climate change.
I used one of yours about the Obama job creation myth a lot but lost the link when I wiped my computer awhile back. Some of David Stockman’s are good. He had several on Reaganomics and how it started our deficit spending and debt/leverage problem we have now. He believes supply side economics hagiography among republicans is overblown. You had some good pictures on your site–I can still picture one of the German hunter standing over a dead lion. I know what I would wish for him-meet the lion’s mate in a confined area without a gun.

6 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Joe, for your comments.

18 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data

Global warming swindle

Tyler Durden has reported at ZeroHedge:

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

. . .

And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans. . . .

See http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent- (“Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: ‘Not Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data'”) (emphasis in original and added; chart and video omitted)

All of this is consistent with my article above.

29 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars [UPDATED]

Tesla fail

Alex Brummer has written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

Earlier this year, car buyers were encouraged to take advantage of the Government’s new environmentally friendly decision to exempt from road tax all electric cars with zero carbon emissions that cost less than £40,000.

Intrigued to see the choices that might be available, I visited a Mitsubishi dealer. The hottest model on the forecourt in this category was the latest hybrid Sports Utility Vehicle.

A salesman told me that if I was interested in buying it and wanted to avoid the slow process of recharging the car overnight using my domestic electricity supply, he could install a more powerful charger on my driveway for free.

I had never realised that owning an electric car involved such a daily palaver. So, put off by the idea of having to plug in the car every night and the potential for overloading our house’s electric circuits, I did not proceed any further.

Instead, I went back down the traditional fossil fuel route. I did so reluctantly, considering that petrol, and particularly diesel, engines clearly produce polluting and lethally noxious fumes.

Like many others over the past decades, I feel I have been a victim of irresponsibly confusing messages from government ministers and the motor industry.

It has been a long saga. First, everyone was urged to buy a car fuelled by unleaded petrol, which doesn’t emit as many harmful substances nor damage a car’s exhaust and spark plugs.

Then we were assured by Tony Blair’s Labour government that diesel was cleaner than petrol and we were given financial incentives to buy diesel vehicles.

Some years later we were told that toxic particles from diesel vehicles can work their way through the lungs and into the bloodstream, raising the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

On top of this, we were told lies by car manufacturers — such as Volkswagen — as they deceived us by cheating in emissions tests to pretend their products were less polluting than they actually were.

And so, as the Government announces its latest oh-so-clever green policy — levies on diesel vehicles in heavily-polluted areas and banning all petrol and diesel vehicles from Britain’s roads from 2040 — it is not surprising that we motorists are deeply distrustful of any environmental initiative involving politicians.

True, the futuristic idea of odourless, quiet and perhaps driverless cars travelling down motorways and pootling around our cities may appear to be a green utopia. But Government policies seem to be woefully thought-out and I fear the true economic (and environmental) costs of this new Nirvana will be enormous.

For the 2040 ban will mean changing from a society where currently less than 5 per cent of the cars registered (about 90,000) have a form of electric power to 100 per cent (nine million cars) in just 22 years.

Such an ambition must be hubris. The ineluctable truth is that a big increase in the number of electric vehicles on our roads will place a massive demand on our already over-stretched electricity supply.

The National Grid has said it could see peak electricity demand jump by more than the capacity of the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear power station by 2030. (It is hoped the plant will provide 7 per cent of the UK’s electricity.)

The drain on supply from millions of car batteries being charged would reverse the trend in recent years of falling electricity demand, driven by energy efficiency measures.

This is pie-in-the sky politics with little thought given to where the extra electricity will come from. Unless, of course, ministers want to plaster more of the countryside with wind turbines — which a government adviser once admitted that, even if ten per cent of Britain was covered with them, would generate only one sixth of the nation’s energy needs.

Even without electric cars, there are fears of future blackouts during winter cold spells.

What’s more, Britain is increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers for electricity — with pipelines coming from the Continent and with giants such as France’s EDF running our nuclear power stations.

This means that not only do we risk losing supply during bad weather, but we are also dependent on good relations with foreign governments.

As for the Government’s energy strategy, the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant has been described by the National Audit Office (NAO) as ‘risky and expensive’ and having ‘uncertain’ economic benefits.

Also, it threatens to be a bad deal for consumers. EDF and China General Nuclear, which are building the plant, will be paid a guaranteed £92.50 per megawatt hour, rising with inflation for 35 years. The NAO says this amounts to a £30 billion subsidy — or between £10 and £15 on an average household’s annual bill.

Although the Government must be praised for its support of BMW after the car-maker decided to build a new generation of battery-powered Minis in Cowley, the lack of investment in the UK in battery technology is shamefully irresponsible. Indeed — surprise, surprise — the power units for the Minis will be imported from Germany.

Overseas, big money and clever brains are being put behind research in this field — such as U.S. entrepreneur Elon Musk, founder of Tesla electric cars, building a £3.9 billion factory for lithium batteries.

And there is another paradox about the Government’s obsession with electric vehicles. For this is a time in history when the availability of carbon fuels has never been so great.

Gone is all apocalyptic talk of ‘peak oil’, of the oil producers’ cartel OPEC pushing up the price of a barrel of crude oil and of reserves drying up.

The truth is that the fracking boom means America is almost oil and gas self-sufficient and no longer dependent on the Middle East. Techniques which allow safer deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic also have vastly increased sources of supply.

So confident is the U.S. of having an energy surplus that it has signed long-term contracts with Centrica, owner of British Gas, to provide the UK with large quantities of liquified natural gas.

The high level of U.S. production, together with renewed output from Iran and Iraq, countries absent from global markets for many years, means that crude oil prices have more than halved in price from $100-a-barrel in recent years.

How perverse, therefore, with technology making diesel and petrol engines cleaner than ever, for British motorists to be forced to swap a fairly cheap source of energy for one which is going to be hugely costly.

No one in government has even told us the cost of spending millions of unnecessary money on the National Grid in order to supply electricity to all those new plug-points.

Moreover, there has not been any discussion of the safety impact of building electricity pillars in homes. Already, there are fears that circuit-breakers would pop under strain, thus cutting off supplies.

All these important issues are ones that Government ministers seem to be ignoring.

How ironic, too, at a time when new petrol and even diesel cars are so much less polluting as a result of catalytic converters and purifying technologies, that Environment Secretary Michael Gove talks about bans and tolls on the most polluted roads.

The right time would be when Britain has a plan for new electricity generating capacity.

Yes, protection of the environment from pollution is important for our health and for future generations. But in the end it is the free market and consumer choice which ought to decide — not politicians who have consistently shown themselves to be both incompetent and wrong when it comes to looking after our transport and energy needs.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4734028/Electric-cars-numbering-9m-need-powered-somehow.html (“So how on earth are we going to power nine million electric cars [in the UK alone?]”) (emphasis added); see also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/21/dont-boil-kettle-charging-electric-car-will-blow-fuse-national/ (“Don’t boil the kettle while charging your electric car because it will blow the fuse, National Grid warns“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-model-3-arrives-as-elon-musk-tries-to-manage-expectations-1501234208 (“Tesla Model 3 Arrives as Elon Musk Warns of ‘Manufacturing Hell’”) and https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4136122/elon-musk-is-bipolar-and-suffers-from-unrelenting-stress-he-reveals-in-astonishingly-honest-tweets/ (“Elon Musk is ‘bipolar’ and suffers from ‘unrelenting’ stress, he reveals in astonishingly honest tweets“) and https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-latest-outburst-raises-doubts-leadership-011517976.html (“Elon Musk’s latest outburst raises doubts on [mental stability and] leadership“) and http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/13/its-time-to-stop-spending-taxpayer-dollars-on-elon-musk-and-cronyism/ (“It’s Time to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Elon Musk and Cronyism“) and http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/345338-can-we-wean-elon-musk-off-government-support-already (“Can we wean Elon Musk off government support already?“) and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/married-americans-are-more-unhappy-than-ever (“Tesla is burning through cash. (By the end of the year, Elon Musk’s company will have spent $10 billion without even making 10 cents, Bloomberg’s David Welch reports.) In the U.S., sales of electric cars still counted for less than 1 percent of the market last year“) and https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/tesla-recalling-11000-model-x-suvs-for-seat-issue.html (“Tesla recalling 11,000 Model X SUVs for seat issue“) and https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/02/tesla_share_price_drop_tax_break/ (“Tesla share crash amid Republican bid to kill off electric car tax break“) and http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bad-air-days-20171115-story.html (“Southern California smog worsens for second straight year despite reduced emissions“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-11095 (“MORE CALIFORNIA LUNACY: EDISON SAYS STATE NEEDS ONE-QUARTER OF ITS VEHICLES TO BE ELECTRIC“) and https://apnews.com/181514df80ab40418efe7405e9d2ebb4 (“Tesla Model 3 buyers lose patience and maybe tax credits“) and https://nypost.com/2018/07/19/elon-musks-bizarre-tweets-are-raising-red-flags-on-wall-street/ (“Elon Musk’s bizarre tweets are raising red flags on Wall Street“) and https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-19/why-are-thousands-teslas-sitting-field-california-0 (“Why Are ‘Thousands’ of Teslas Sitting In a Field in California?“) and https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/jp-morgan-tesla-shares-stock/2018/07/20/id/872892/ (“JPMorgan: Tesla Shares Will Plunge More Than 40 Percent“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-asks-suppliers-for-cash-back-to-help-turn-a-profit-1532301091 (“Tesla Asks Suppliers for Cash Back to Help Turn a Profit“) and https://nypost.com/2018/07/21/elon-musk-is-a-total-fraud/ (“Elon Musk is a total fraud“) and http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/ (“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-has-made-inquiries-to-tesla-over-elon-musks-taking-private-tweet-1533757570 (“SEC Probes Tesla CEO Musk’s Tweets“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14477 (“FEDS INTENSIFY TESLA PROBE“) and https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/tesla-whistleblower-tweets-details-about-flawed-cars-scrapped-parts.html (“Tesla whistleblower Martin Tripp tweets details about allegations“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14554 (“Are Elon Musk And Tesla Imploding?“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14734 (“Is The End Near For Elon Musk And Tesla?“)

First, the United States is approximately 40 times the size of the United Kingdom, which itself is comprised of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Hence, American driving distances are much greater than anything the Brits are used to.

Second, no one has answered yet if the Tesla batteries are toxic and where they will end up. In nuclear waste or similar dumps—which the the “eco-freaks” or “eco-Nazis” (take your pick) fight against?

Third, lots of Americans are getting 35-40 miles per gallon now, with wonderful, reliable gasoline-powered vehicles.

See, e.g., http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5880609/Tesla-electric-cars-not-greener-petrol-ones-according-UK-data.html (“Electric Teslas may be no greener than petrol and diesel cars despite being marketed as the world’s most environmentally friendly vehicles“)

Fourth, it has been reported that a Tesla truck will be coming out soon. Few if any self-respecting Ford F-series truck owners will switch to a Tesla. Presently, such Fords are the largest selling vehicles in the U.S. by far.

Fifth, as discussed in my article above, man-made “global warming” is a hoax and the “Great Green Con,” and nothing more than a $34 trillion wealth transfer scheme, concocted by the Left and the eco-Nazis.

Its adherents would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society” centuries ago, and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

George Orwell described its “leaders” in his timeless Animal Farm, where all animals were supposed to be equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals.

The eco-Nazis and other Leftists are bound and determined to kill off all forms of abundant, cheap energy, inter alia, because they pray at the altar of man-made “global warming.”

For example, unsightly wind turbines kill birds. Just travel east from Los Angeles to Palm Desert and one will pass wind farms with killer turbines, and others that were abandoned years ago when their tax benefits expired.

See, e.g., http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds (“Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds?“)

The “status symbol” of the eco-Nazis and their equally-despicable Leftist cohorts in the United States—especially on the Left Coast—is the Tesla, which is why so many Americans want to see the brand go the way of the Edsel and DeLorean, into the junkheap of history. The sooner, the better.

Sixth, in the final analysis, the Tesla may end up like the Edsel and DeLorean: nothing more than collectors’ items of brands that have disappeared.

Seventh, Musk and Tesla and Tesla buyers should get ZERO tax credits and/or other incentives.

Eighth, Tesla, Prius and other electric/hybrid cars are essentially silent at times, and pedestrians and others can be killed or injured because of it. When this happens, the electric car makers should be sued for millions.

Ninth, Musk is a con artist, and the Tesla is the ultimate con.

In Hans Christian Andersen’s fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for the emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.

The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all”—and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.

It is simply a matter of time before Musk is exposed, and joins the ranks of Bernie Madoff and others.

See, e.g., http://theweek.com/articles/760365/elon-musk-messianic-huckster (“Elon Musk is a messianic huckster”—”Elon Musk is a goofball techbro whose real business is quack philosophizing, not inventions or engineering”—”Why have we allowed this lunatic a prominent place in our public and commercial life?”—”Just two years ago a bleary-eyed enthusiast in Florida, convinced of the mechanical infallibility of his robotic [Tesla] automobile, decided to ignore the road and watch a Harry Potter movie instead. Tragically but not, one thinks, very surprisingly, he soon collided with a semi truck and died”—”He is . . . a typical example of a type that is painfully familiar in American life: the shamanic huckster. Such persons have flourished in the fertile soil of this continent and the equally fecund imaginations of our free-thinking citizenry almost since the Mayflower”—”If it weren’t for his peddling of high-priced death-traps that federal regulators have so far allowed to traverse our crumbling roads, I would feel comfortable declaring him essentially harmless”) and https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/tesla-manufacturing-high-volume-of-flawed-parts-employees.html (“Tesla manufacturing high volume of flawed parts: employees“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-make-or-break-moment-is-fast-approaching-1521111603 (“Tesla’s Make-Or-Break Moment Is Fast Approaching”—”Musk has good reason to worry about Tesla. The auto maker is entering one of the most critical phases in its history, a make-or-break period in which Tesla must boost production of the Model 3 or possibly face severe financial consequences”—”Tesla burned through on average about $1 billion a quarter last year, largely because of heavy investments to bring production of the Model 3 online. That left it with nearly $3.4 billion in cash at year-end, suggesting that at a similar pace it would be out of cash later this year unless it can raise more funds or substantially boost production”—”Since going public in 2010, Tesla has burned through about $10 billion in cash, an unusually large sum for a publicly traded U.S. company of its size”—”[Musk] is grappling with these challenges after losing a number of financial executives. In recent days, Tesla’s chief accounting officer and treasurer both left, following last year’s exit of the financial chief and last month’s departure of the top sales executive”—”Tesla is no longer a startup. It is a 38,000-person company that is trying to compete with the world’s largest auto makers”—”Some investors are watching indicators of credit strength that are generally regarded as a gauge of a company’s likelihood of bankruptcy, such as the ‘Altman Z-Score’ . . . Based on the Z-Score formula—which takes into account a number of variables, including share price, working capital, retained earnings and other items—Tesla had a score of 1.26, its lowest score for any quarter since 2014. Any company with a score below 1.8 is considered distressed by many investors. A score of 1.0 or lower suggests bankruptcy is likely within two years”) and https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/04/02/tesla-elon-musk-electric-cars/472347002/ (“Tesla CEO Elon Musk may need to ‘rethink’ electric-car making strategy“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-has-made-inquiries-to-tesla-over-elon-musks-taking-private-tweet-1533757570 (“SEC Probes Tesla CEO Musk’s Tweets“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14477 (“FEDS INTENSIFY TESLA PROBE“)

Tenth, the Wall Street Journal has reported that “cobalt has suddenly emerged as the electric car killer,” and that “[o]utput is concentrated in the politically unstable Democratic Republic of Congo and refining is dominated by China.”

See https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-tesla-die-for-lack-of-cobalt-1511951403?mg=prod/accounts-wsj (“Will Tesla Die for Lack of Cobalt?“)

Eleventh, there are reasons to believe that Teslas are unsafe, just like Toyota and Lexus vehicles, which were subject to a massive cover-up.

See https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/22/tesla-on-autopilot-slams-into-parked-fire-truck-on-freeway/; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/toyota-and-lexus-vehicles-are-unsafe/ (“Toyota And Lexus Vehicles Are Unsafe“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article) and http://www.autonews.com/article/20180517/COPY01/305179973/tesla-musk-crash-switzerland (“Swiss prosecutors investigate fatal Tesla crash“) and http://www.autonews.com/article/20180522/OEM05/180529929/musk-admits-tesla-model-3-braking-issue (“Musk admits Tesla Model 3 braking issue, promises fix“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5852195/Actress-Mary-McCormack-claims-husbands-Tesla-Model-S-spontaneously-combusted.html (“Actress Mary McCormack claims her husband’s Tesla Model S ‘spontaneously combusted'”) and http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180531/ANE/180539963/tesla-says-autopilot-feature-not-engaged-in-brussels-car-crash (“Tesla’s Autopilot not engaged in Brussels car crash“) and http://www.autonews.com/article/20180606/OEM/180609817/musk-fails-to-quell-safety-doubts-at-tesla-with-data (“Musk fails to quell safety doubts at Tesla with data“) and http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180705/ANE/180709839/tesla-irks-customers-in-key-european-market (“The Palo Alto, California-based electric-car maker is fourth highest on a list of companies about which the Norwegian Consumer Council received complaints in the first-half of this year, the government-funded agency said in a report dated July 4. It was contacted 118 times by consumers regarding Tesla, moving the company up from 24th place last year“)

Twelfth, with America gushing oil, electric vehicles (EVs) will have a role but not a big one for years, if ever. Tesla is likely to disappear before that happens, like the Edsel and DeLorean.

To the extent that the world’s major automakers are producing EVs, the Tesla’s days will be even shorter. Should Musk “disappear” (e.g., he has long-standing health problems), Tesla will be history.

Yes, it might be picked up by some Chinese or Indian company, as Volvo and Land Rover were after Ford got rid of both brands, but that is the best scenario that may happen for the company.

Indeed, in the final analysis, Tesla seems destined to occupy a distinguished spot in the dustbin of history, where thousands of auto brands reside today.

Thirteen, self-driving cars (e.g., Teslas, Uber) are menaces to the road. Indeed, Uber should be sued for many millions based on a death, and put out of business like Hulk Hogan did with Gawker.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5519433/Self-driving-Uber-car-runs-kills-pedestrian-Arizona.html (“Self-driving Uber car runs over and kills a pedestrian in Arizona in first fatality of its kind – forcing the company to pull its fleet of test vehicles from the streets“); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker (“Bollea v. Gawker“) and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/toyota-pauses-robot-car-program-citing-drivers-emotional-toll (“Toyota Halts Robot-Car Tests Citing Drivers’ Emotional Toll“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-says-autopilot-was-engaged-in-fatal-crash-under-investigation-in-california-1522462409 (“Tesla Says Autopilot Was Engaged in Fatal Crash Under Investigation in California”—”Tesla Inc. late Friday acknowledged its semiautonomous Autopilot system was engaged by the driver in the seconds before a fatal crash last week, raising more questions about the safety of self-driving technology on public roads”) and https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/too-much-competition-tesla-stock-will-drop-to-84-by-2019-analyst.html (“Too much competition. Tesla stock will drop to $84 by 2019: analyst“) and https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/gm-cuts-several-hundred-jobs-at-ohio-plant-as-car-sales-continue-to-slide.html (“GM cuts several hundred jobs at Ohio plant as car sales continue to slide“) and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-18/california-opens-investigation-into-tesla-workplace-conditions (“California Opens Investigation Into Tesla Workplace Conditions“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5722283/Tesla-Autopilot-slams-truck-stopped-red-light.html (“Tesla with Autopilot slams into truck stopped at red light“) and http://www.autonews.com/article/20180514/OEM02/180519880/musk-tesla-wall-street-short-sellers (The “rats” are leaving the sinking Tesla ship: “Musk says he’s ‘flattening’ Tesla’s structure as defections mount”)

Lastly and most importantly, while Elon Musk has ambitious plans that may or may not materialize, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has even more ambitious plans for us, which might end all of Musk’s dreams . . . and ours.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/#comment-10505 (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article itself)

Before Barack Obama took office, I discussed—with one of his highest operatives—the risks that an EMP Attack represented. Then, both China and Russia had let it be known that they could launch one against the American mainland and we would not be able to stop them except for MAD (“mutual assured destruction”).

Today, one can be launched from North Korea, or from a sub or barge located in the Atlantic or Pacific, or in the Gulf of Mexico or the Sea of Cortez. Our military is partially hardened, but the civilian sector is not.

As my EMP Attack article points out—buttressed by fine work by the EMP Commission and the Wall Street Journal—only 30 million Americans would survive, which is scary to say the least. The rest would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout our great nation, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency, which is utter madness.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/ (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“)

Elon Musk

18 07 2018
Ben

Hi tim, Instead of rehashing what others have written in their owns blogs as proof to your own opinions, Musk is putting his money where his mouth is. He is risking his own money to achieve in something he believes is the right thing for this world (i guess you call that “eco nazis”? You clear[ly] have zero grasp on what the word Nazi actually means) and creating something positive for the planet. You quote pieces of other small minded people and call that your work. So congrats on hoping someone else will fail, as you can’t even do your own thinking. I would say I hope you fail, but i am guessing that deep down you know that has already come to pass. Maybe spend less time collect quotes and more time trying to be your own person and impact change positively. We have enough doubters in the world, find a new role.

PS research the difference between weather and climate. You might be surprised what you learn!

18 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ben, for your comments.

First, this blog does not “rehash[] what others have written in their owns blogs as proof [of my] own opinions.” I seldom if ever cite to other blogs as authorities.

Second, there is no question that Musk is putting money where his mouth is; namely, his investors’ money. Yes, he has his own “skin” in the game too, but he has much larger fish to fry (e.g., SpaceX).

Third, man-made “global warming” or climate change is a hoax and the “Great Green Con,” as discussed in the article above, and in the extensive comments beneath it.

“Thinking people” realize that our planet has gone through periods of warming and cooling for millions of years, before Man was ever on the planet. The process will continue long after each of us and our heirs are long gone.

As I have stated above, it is likely that those who believe in man-made global warming today would have been “card carrying” members of the “Flat Earth Society” centuries ago, and have been just as convinced of their beliefs and of the need to subjugate others.

Fourth, I cite to a vast number of reputable authorities to bolster arguments that I make. However, I give them credit for their comments, and do not engage in plagiarism.

See, e.g., https://apnews.com/181514df80ab40418efe7405e9d2ebb4 (“Tesla Model 3 buyers lose patience and maybe tax credits”) and https://nypost.com/2018/07/19/elon-musks-bizarre-tweets-are-raising-red-flags-on-wall-street/ (“Elon Musk’s bizarre tweets are raising red flags on Wall Street”) and https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-19/why-are-thousands-teslas-sitting-field-california-0 (“Why Are ‘Thousands’ of Teslas Sitting In a Field in California?”) and https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/jp-morgan-tesla-shares-stock/2018/07/20/id/872892/ (“JPMorgan: Tesla Shares Will Plunge More Than 40 Percent”) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-asks-suppliers-for-cash-back-to-help-turn-a-profit-1532301091 (“Tesla Asks Suppliers for Cash Back to Help Turn a Profit”) and https://nypost.com/2018/07/21/elon-musk-is-a-total-fraud/ (“Elon Musk is a total fraud”) and http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/ (“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate”)

Fifth, I do not hope that Musk fails, certainly with respect to his SpaceX program. He is bipolar by his own admissions, and can be erratic; and anyone who has dealt with those who suffer from being bipolar realizes that sooner or later they “implode.”

For example, the son of old friends of mine said he was a “human bomb” on a flight to San Francisco, and was arrested when it landed. I could cite other tragic examples. Is that Musk’s fate? No one knows. But those investors in his endeavors ought to be very mindful of the risks involved.

Sixth, Teslas are the “status symbols” of the Left and/or eco-Nazis, at least in the USA. Lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again. For better or worse, the Tesla is a “lightening rod” for those who despise America’s Left.

12 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

THE DERANGED FRAUDSTERS AND HUCKSTERS OF GLOBAL WARMING [UPDATED]

Global warming swindle

Valerie Richardson has written in The Washington Times:

Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but it hasn’t discouraged climate scientists like Judith Curry.

A retired Georgia Tech professor, she argued on her Climate Etc. website that Irma, which hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on Saturday, was fueled in large part by “very weak” wind shear and that the hurricane intensified despite Atlantic Ocean temperatures that weren’t unusually warm.

That is the kind of talk that could get policymakers who heed her research hauled before the justice system, if some of those in the climate change movement have their way.

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions.

“In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable,” said the subhead in the Outline article, written by Brian Merchant.

Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”

Climate skeptics have taken note of the alarming trend. “Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming-hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006,” said Ms. Curry.

Anthony Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That blog, listed some of the threats to criminalize skeptics under the headline, “Hate on Display — climate activists go bonkers over #Irma and nonexistent climate connection.”

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano said the heightened vitriol aimed at those who dispute the link between climate change and extreme weather events is a sign that the global warming narrative is losing steam with the public and policymakers.

“Activists have been frustrated with record number of polar bears, no acceleration of sea level, the Pause, no trends or declining trends in extreme weather and the public’s apathy,” said Mr. Morano, whose book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” is slated to be released in February.

“Trump has added to all of that, and we are now seeing them blow their gaskets in frustration,” he said.

Given the heated exchanges fueled by the two hurricanes, the climate change debate is clearly far from resolved.

President Trump has said he plans to pull out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, drawing an outcry from those who argue that rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are driving higher temperatures and natural disasters such as drought, wildfires and hurricanes.

“The effects of climate change are no longer subtle. We are seeing them play out before us here and now. And they will only worsen if we fail to act,” said a Sept. 7 op-ed in The Washington Post co-authored by Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann.

White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert deflected questions at a Monday press briefing about whether Harvey and Irma were caused or made worse by human-driven climate change, saying that “causality is outside of my ability to analyze right now.”

“I will tell you that we continue to take seriously the climate change, not the cause of it, but the things that we observe,” Mr. Bossert said. “And so there’s rising floodwaters — I think 1 inch every 10 years in Tampa — things that would require prudent mitigation measures.”

Meanwhile, Pope Francis said the two Category 4 storms offer proof of catastrophic climate change, even though they are the first two major hurricanes to make landfall on the U.S. mainland in 12 years.

“You can see the effects of climate change with your own eyes, and scientists tell us clearly the way forward,” said the pontiff, adding that leaders have a “moral responsibility” to take action.

An analysis by Colorado State University meteorologist Philip Klotzbach found that the latest hurricanes weren’t unprecedented in terms of their power upon making landfall in the U.S.

His chart showed that Irma made landfall in Florida at 929 mb, or millibars, tying it for the seventh most powerful storm to hit the mainland since record-keeping began in the 1850s.

In Texas, Hurricane Harvey ranked 17th at 938 mb, placing it in a three-way tie with an 1898 Georgia hurricane and Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

The push to prosecute climate skeptics comes even though the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has concluded that it is “premature to conclude that human activities — and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming — have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or tropical cyclone activity.”

“That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable,” said the Aug. 30 statement.

On the other side is billionaire Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Airlines, who rode out Irma on his private island in the British Virgin Islands and cited the hurricanes as evidence of human-caused global warming.

“Man-made climate change is contributing to increasingly strong hurricanes causing unprecedented damage,” Mr. Branson said in a Friday statement. “The whole world should be scrambling to get on top of the climate change issue before it is too late for this generation, let alone the generations to come.”

Mr. Watts said the air pressure graphic should prompt global warming activists to take a deep breath.

“With Irma ranked 7th, and Harvey ranked 18th, it’s going to be tough for climate alarmists to try connecting these two storms to being driven by CO2/global warming,” Mr. Watts said in a post. “But they’ll do it anyway.”

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/ (“Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes“) (emphasis added)

So-called man-made “global warming” is a $34 trillion swindle, a hoax, and “The Great Green Con.” Its proponents are fanatical, delusional, deranged fraudsters and evil hucksters, and far-Left “eco-Nazis.”

In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (“Animal Farm”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“)

1 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

MORE CALIFORNIA LUNACY: EDISON SAYS STATE NEEDS ONE-QUARTER OF ITS VEHICLES TO BE ELECTRIC

Tesla fail

Steve Scauzillo has written in the Orange County Register:

Saying it was committed to slowing global climate change, Southern California Edison doubled down Tuesday on its goal for escalating the state’s share of renewable power.

SCE called for huge increases in electric vehicles, as well as replacing natural gas water heaters in homes and businesses with electric heaters.

In a report titled “The Clean Power and Electrification Pathway,” the Rosemead-based investor said it wanted to double the use of carbon-free electricity from 40 percent to 80 percent by 2030.

The utility is ahead of schedule for reaching 50 percent power from renewables by 2030, now saying the state needs to raise the bar.

In order for California to achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2030 as set by law, the utility says it will eliminate its fossil-fuel power sources and add more solar, wind, geothermal and large-scale hydroelectric power to the grid — plus additional battery storage for that power.

If 80 percent of California’s power came from renewable sources, it would lower greenhouse gases from 84 million metric tons to 28 million metric tons per year, about 31 percent of the 2030 reduction goal, according to the report — still not enough for the state to reach its greenhouse gas reduction target.

SCE is asking the state’s top environmental and energy agencies to be more aggressive and for consumers to buy zero-emissions cars and energy-stingy appliances during the next 12 years.

If not, the state could see more intense droughts and devastating wildfires that a majority of scientists say are made worse by the effects of climate change.

“We wrote this as a citizen of the state,” said Pedro Pizarro, president and CEO of Edison International, parent company of SCE, in an interview Tuesday. “We have a small part to play in this but an important part. This will require a lot of different actions from a lot of players.”

The plan would almost double the number of electric cars expected by state agencies by 2030.

The California Air Resources Board’s plan calls for 4 million EVs. But SCE says reaching the state emission goals will take rolling out 7 million EVs, both passenger models and heavy-duty vehicles.

That’s equal to about 24 percent of all vehicles in the state. Today, there are about 300,000 EVs on state roads.

State energy regulators have been selling excess solar power to other states at a loss because of an influx of power from solar rooftops and large-scale solar projects in the desert, Pizarro said. SCE estimates a need for 10 gigawatts of battery storage to hold onto sun power for use at night.

For years, utilities espoused charging up at night, but they now say EVs sitting in shopping centers or workplace parking lots can act as mobile battery storage and help balance out the state’s power load.

Electric vehicle owners are now encouraged to charge their cars between 12 noon and 4 p.m., when there’s an abundance of clean energy in the grid.

Edison is providing discounts for shopping centers and office complexes to install public car chargers, Pizarro said.

The United Kingdom, France, Norway, India and China have announced plans to eliminate all internal combustion vehicles in the coming decades, while Volvo will only produce electric and hybrid cars beginning in 2019, the report stated.

Additional funding is needed to help utilities build more infrastructure for public charging stations and electric car chargers at workplaces and shopping centers, the report said.

Pizarro said Edison, as well as other utilities, need time to modernize transmission lines in order to handle an electrified transportation network and increased number of electric water and space heaters in buildings.

The report calls for utilities, state environmental agencies and consumers to begin moving toward a “new energy paradigm” that addresses the challenge of global climate change as well as improving local air quality.

He said SCE’s plan is the most economical way to reach the 2030 goal, as well as the 80 percent greenhouse gas reduction goal set for 2050, while adding new, skilled jobs.

“This is feasible. This can be done. We can get there,” he said.

See http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/31/edison-says-california-needs-one-quarter-of-its-vehicles-to-be-electric-to-meet-climate-change-goals/?ito=792 (“Edison says California needs one-quarter of its vehicles to be electric to meet climate change goals“) (emphasis added)

Many of us were born and raised in California, and we will always love the State and have fond memories of our time growing up there. But this is sheer madness, in pursuit of the man-made “global warming” hoax, and yet another example of California’s “politically correct” lunacy. It is among the many reasons why the “Flyover States”—which elected our President, and will reelect him in 2020—view California with such unbridled contempt if not hatred, and as “La La Land.”

However, it is certainly consistent with the Harvey Weinstein and related scandals that have been rocking Hollywood, which has been known for decades as a center of depravity and the “hunting ground” for would-be starlets.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-10901 (“HOLLYWOOD HAS BEEN SICK FOR DECADES“)

Edison is simply playing politics, sadly. Electric cars such as the Tesla are destined for oblivion.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“); see also http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bad-air-days-20171115-story.html (“Southern California smog worsens for second straight year despite reduced emissions“)

16 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Latest Global Warming Madness

Global warming swindle

The UK’s Economist has reported:

SWEDEN’S parliament passed a law in June which obliges the country to have “no net emissions” of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2045. The clue is in the wording. This does not mean that three decades from now Swedes must emit no planet-heating substances; even if all their electricity came from renewables and they only drove Teslas, they would presumably still want to fly in aeroplanes, or use cement and fertiliser, the making of which releases plenty of carbon dioxide. Indeed, the law only requires gross emissions to drop by 85% compared with 1990 levels. But it demands that remaining carbon sources are offset with new carbon sinks. In other words greenhouse gases will need to be extracted from the air.

Sweden’s pledge is among the world’s most ambitious. But if the global temperature is to have a good chance of not rising more than 2ºC above its pre-industrial level, as stipulated in the Paris climate agreement of 2015, worldwide emissions must similarly hit “net zero” no later than 2090. After that, emissions must go “net negative”, with more carbon removed from the stock than is emitted.

This is because what matters to the climate is the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To keep the temperature below a certain level means keeping within a certain “carbon budget”—allowing only so much to accumulate, and no more. Once you have spent that budget, you have to balance all new emissions with removals. If you overspend it, the fact that the world takes time to warm up means you have a brief opportunity to put things right by taking out more than you are putting in.

Being able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is, therefore, a crucial element in meeting climate targets. Of the 116 models the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) looks at to chart the economically optimal paths to the Paris goal, 101 assume “negative emissions”. No scenarios are at all likely to keep warming under 1.5ºC without greenhouse-gas removal. “It is built into the assumptions of the Paris agreement,” says Gideon Henderson of Oxford University.

Climate scientists like Mr Henderson have been discussing negative-emissions technologies (NETs) with economists and policy wonks since the 1990s. Their debate has turned livelier since the Paris agreement, the phrasing of which strongly suggests that countries will need to invent new sinks as well as cutting emissions. But so far politicians have largely ignored the issue, preferring to focus on curbing current flows of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. NETs were conspicuous by their absence from the agenda of the annual UN climate jamboree which ended in Bonn on November 17th.

In the short term this makes sense. The marginal cost of reducing emissions is currently far lower than the marginal cost of taking carbon dioxide straight from the atmosphere. But climate is not a short-term game. And in the long term, ignoring the need for negative emissions is complacent at best. The eventual undertaking, after all, will be gargantuan. The median IPCC model assumes sucking up a total of 810bn tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2100, equivalent to roughly 20 years of global emissions at the current rate. To have any hope of doing so, preparations for large-scale extraction ought to begin in the 2020s.

Modellers favour NETs that use plants because they are a tried and true technology. Reforesting logged areas or “afforesting” previously treeless ones presents no great technical challenges. More controversially, they also tend to invoke “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS). In BECCS, power stations fuelled by crops that can be burned to make energy have their carbon-dioxide emissions injected into deep geological strata, rather than released into the atmosphere.

The technology for doing the CCS part of BECCS has been around for a while; some scenarios for future energy generation rely heavily on it. But so far there are only 17 CCS programmes big enough to dispose of around 1m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Promoting CCS is an uphill struggle, mainly because it doubles the cost of energy from the dirty power plants whose flues it scrubs. Other forms of low-emission electricity are much cheaper. Affixed to bioenergy generation, though, CCS does something that other forms of generation cannot. The carbon which the plants that serve as fuel originally took from the atmosphere above is sent into the rocks below, making it a negative emitter.

The problem with afforestation and BECCS is that the plants involved need a huge amount of land. The area estimated ranges from 3.2m square kilometres (roughly the size of India) to as much as 9.7m square kilometres (roughly the size of Canada). That is the equivalent of between 23% and 68% of the world’s arable land. It may be that future agricultural yields can be increased so dramatically that, even in a world with at least 2bn more mouths to feed, the area of its farms could be halved, and that the farmers involved might be happy with this turn of events. But it seems highly unlikely—and blithely assuming it can be done is plainly reckless.

Negative thinking

Less land-intensive alternatives exist—at least on paper. Some are low tech, like stimulating the soil to store more carbon by limiting or halting deep-ploughing. Others are less so, such as contraptions to seize carbon dioxide directly from the air, or methods that accelerate the natural weathering processes by which minerals in the Earth’s crust bind atmospheric carbon over aeons or that introduce alkaline compounds into the sea to make it absorb more carbon dioxide.

According to Jennifer Wilcox of the Colorado School of Mines, and her colleagues, the technology with the second-highest theoretical potential, after BECCS, is direct air capture (see chart 2). This uses CCS-like technology on the open air, rather than on exhaust gases. The problem is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, while very high by historical standards, is very low by chemical-engineering ones: just 0.04%, as opposed to the 10% or more offered by power-plant chimneys and industrial processes such as cement-making.

The technologies that exist today, under development by companies such as Global Thermostat in America, Carbon Engineering in Canada or Climeworks of Switzerland, remain pricey. In 2011 a review by the American Physical Society to which Ms Wilcox contributed put extraction costs above $600 per tonne, compared with an average estimate of $60-250 for BECCS.

Enhanced weathering is at an even earlier stage of development and costs are still harder to assess. Estimates range from $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide to $600. On average, 2-4 tonnes of silicate minerals (olivine, sometimes used in Finnish saunas because it withstands repeated heating and cooling, is a favourite) are needed for every tonne removed. To extract 5bn tonnes of carbon dioxide a year may require up to 20bn tonnes of minerals that must be ground into fine dust. Grinding is energy-intensive. Distributing the powder evenly, on land or sea, would be a logistical challenge to put it mildly.

Ideas abound on a small scale, in labs or in researchers’ heads, but the bigger mechanical schemes in existence today capture a paltry 40m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Most involve CCS and have prevented more carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere from fossil-burning power plants, rather than removing it. Removing 8bn-10bn tonnes by 2050, as the more sanguine scenarios envisage, let alone the 35bn-40bn tonnes in more pessimistic ones, will be a vast undertaking.

Progress will be needed on many fronts. All the more reason to test lots of technologies. For the time being even researchers with a horse in the race are unwilling to bet on a winner. Pete Smith of Aberdeen University speaks for many NETs experts when he says that “none is a silver bullet, and none has a fatal flaw.”

It will also not come cheap. WITCH, constructed by Massimo Tavoni of Politecnico di Milano, is a model which analyses climate scenarios. Unlike most simulations, it also estimates how much research-and-development funding is necessary to achieve roll-out at the sort of scale these models forecast. For all low-carbon technologies, it puts the figure at $65bn a year until 2050, four times the sum that renewables, batteries and the like attract today. Mr Tavoni says a chunk of that would obviously need to go to NETs, which currently get next to nothing.

Even the less speculative technologies need investment right away. Trees take decades to reach their carbon-sucking potential, so large-scale planting needs to start soon, notes Tim Searchinger of Princeton University. Direct air capture in particular looks expensive. Boosters note that a few years ago so did renewables. Before technological progress brought prices down, many countries subsidised renewable-energy sources to the tune of $500 per tonne of carbon dioxide avoided and often spent huge sums on it. Christoph Gebald, co-founder of Climeworks, says that “the first data point on our technological learning curve” is $600, at the lower end of previous estimates. But like the price of solar panels, he expects his costs to drop in the coming years, perhaps to as low as $100 per tonne.

However, the falling price of solar panels was a result of surging production volumes, which NETs will struggle to replicate. As Oliver Geden of the German Institute of International and Security Affairs observes, “You cannot tell the green-growth story with negative emissions.” A market exists for rooftop solar panels and electric vehicles; one for removing an invisible gas from the air to avert disaster decades from now does not.

Much of the gas captured by Climeworks and other pure NETs firms (as opposed to fossil-fuel CCS) is sold to makers of fizzy drinks or greenhouses to help plants grow. It is hard to imagine that market growing far beyond today’s total of 10m tonnes. And in neither case is the gas stored indefinitely. It is either burped out by consumers of carbonated drinks or otherwise exuded by eaters of greenhouse-grown produce.

There may be other markets, though. It is very hard to imagine aircraft operating without liquid fuels. One way to provide them would be to create them chemically using carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere. It is conceivable that this might be cheaper than alternatives, such as biofuels—especially if the full environmental impact of the biofuels is accounted for. The demand for direct air capture spurred by such a market might drive its costs low enough to make it a more plausible NET.

From thin air

One way to create a market for NETs would be for governments to put a price on carbon. Where they have done so, the technologies have been adopted. Take Norway, which in 1991 told oil firms drilling in the North Sea to capture carbon dioxide from their operations or pay up. This cost is now around $50 per tonne emitted; in one field, called Sleipner, the firms have found ways to pump it back underground for less than that. A broader carbon price—either a tax or tradable emissions permits—would promote negative emissions elsewhere, too.

Then there is the issue of who should foot the bill. Many high-impact negative-emissions schemes make most sense in low-emitting countries, says Ms Wilcox. Brazil could in theory reforest the cerrado (though that would face resistance because of the region’s role in growing soyabeans and beef). Countries of sub-Saharan Africa could do the same in their own tropical savannahs. Spreading olivine in the Amazon and Congo river basins could soak up 2bn tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Developing countries would be understandably loth to bankroll any of this to tackle cumulative emissions, most of which come from the rich world. The latter would doubtless recoil at footing the bill, preferring to concentrate on curbing current emissions in the mistaken belief that once these reach zero, the job is done.

Whether NETs deserve to be lumped in with more outlandish “geoengineering” proposals, such as cooling the Earth with sunlight-reflecting sulphur particles in the stratosphere, is much debated. What they have in common is that they offer ways to deal with the effects of emissions that have already taken place. Proponents of small-scale, low-impact NETs, such as changes to soil management on farms, though, bridle at being considered alongside what they see as high-tech hubris of the most disturbing kind. NETs certainly inspire fewer fears of catastrophic, planetary-scale side-effects than “solar radiation management”.

But they do stoke some when it comes to the consequences of tinkering with the ocean’s alkalinity or injecting large amounts of gas underground. And the direct effects of large-scale BECCS or afforestation projects would be huge. If they don’t take up arable land, they need to take up pasture or wilderness. Either option would be a big deal in terms of both human amenity and biodiversity.

Another concern is the impact on politicians and the dangers of moral hazard. NETs allow politicians to go easy on emission cuts now in the hope that a quick fix will appear in the future. This could prove costly if the technology works—and costlier still if it does not. One study found that following a 2°C mitigation path which takes for granted NETs that fail to materialise would leave the world closer to 3°C warmer. Mr Geden is not alone in fearing that models that increasingly rely on NETs are “a cover for political inaction”.

Everything and the carbon sink

There is some progress. Academics are paying more attention. This year’s edition of “Emissions Gap”, an influential annual report from the UN Environment Programme, devotes a chapter to carbon-dioxide removal. Mr Henderson is leading a study of the subject for Britain’s Royal Society; America’s National Academy of Sciences has commissioned one, too. Both are due next spring. The IPCC will look at the technology in its special report on the 1.5ºC target, due next autumn.

There’s some money, too. Carbon Engineering has attracted backers such as Bill Gates, and now has a pilot plant in Canada. Climeworks has actually sold some carbon-offset credits—to a private investor and a big corporation—on the basis of the carbon dioxide it has squirrelled away at a demonstration plant it recently launched in Iceland. Earlier this year Britain’s government became the first to set aside some cash specifically for NETs research. In October America’s Department of Energy announced a series of grants for “novel and enabling” carbon-capture technologies, some of which could help in the development of schemes for direct air capture. Richard Branson, a British tycoon, has offered $25m to whoever first comes up with a “commercially viable design” that would remove 1bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year for ten years.

All this is welcome, but not enough. The sums involved are trifling: £8.6m ($11.3m) in Britain and $26m from the Department of Energy. The offset sold by Climeworks was for just 100 tonnes. Mr Branson’s prize has gone unclaimed for a decade.

A carbon price—which is a good idea for other reasons, too, would beef up interest in NETs. But one high enough to encourage pricey moonshots may prove too onerous for the rest of the economy. Any price would promote more established low-carbon technologies first and NETs only much later, thinks Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate Research in Oslo.

Encouraging CCS for fossil fuels as a stepping stone to NETs appeals to some. The fossil-fuel industry says it is committed to the technology. Total, a French oil giant, has promised to spend a tenth of its $600m research budget on CCS and related technologies. A group of oil majors says it will spend up to $500m on similar projects between now and 2027. But the field’s slow progress to date hardly encourages optimism. Governments’ commitment to CCS has historically proved fickle.

Last year Britain abruptly scrapped a £1bn public grant for an industrial-scale CCS plant which would have helped fine-tune the technology. For this to change, politicians must expand the focus of the 23-year-old UN Framework Convention on Climate Change from cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to controlling their airborne concentrations, suggests Janos Pasztor, a former climate adviser to the UN secretary-general. In other words, they must think about stocks of carbon dioxide, not just flows.

This is all the more true because emissions continue to elude control. After three years of more or less stable emissions, a zippier world economy looks on track to belch 2% more carbon dioxide this year. That amounts once again to borrowing more of the planet’s remaining carbon budget against future removal. It doesn’t take a numerate modeller like Mr Tavoni to grasp that, in his words, “If you create a debt, you must repay it.” The price of default does not bear thinking about.

See https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21731386-cutting-emissions-will-not-be-enough-keep-global-warming-check-greenhouse-gases-must-be (“Greenhouse gases must be scrubbed from the air“) (Note: “This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition [of the Economist] under the headline ‘Sucking up carbon'”) (emphasis added; charts omitted)

As discussed in the article above and the comments beneath it, so-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change” is a hoax; and the Paris climate agreement is nothing more than a $34 trillion wealth transfer.

Europe may be caught up in this madness, but the United States is not.

George Orwell foretold of this lunacy in his prescient Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

In another time, the proponents of man-made “global warming” would have been devout members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

4 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

THE TOTAL HOAX OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING! [UPDATED]

Boston

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

A massive winter storm roared into the East Coast on Thursday, threatening to dump as much as 18 inches of snow from the Carolinas to Maine and unleashing hurricane-force winds and damaging flooding. Schools and offices were closed, and thousands of flights cancelled.

Forecasters expected the system to be followed immediately by a blast of face-stinging cold air that could break records in more than two dozen cities, with wind chills falling to minus 40 in some places this weekend.

Blizzard warnings and states of emergency were in wide effect, and wind gusts hit up to 76mph in some places. Eastern Massachusetts and most of Rhode Island braced for snow falling as fast as thre inches per hour.

The storm was powered by a rapid plunge in barometric pressure that some weather forecasters were referring to as bombogenesis or a ‘bomb cyclone’ and which brought fast, heavy snowfall and high winds.

Officials reported road accidents throughout the Northeast, including in Manchester, New Hampshire, where a 32-year-old woman crashed a vehicle through the wall of a nursing home. No one was injured in that incident.

Three people were killed in North Carolina after their vehicles ran off snow-covered roads, authorities said.

In New Jersey, Orlando Igmat’s car got stuck in a snowbank along the Garden State Parkway in Tinton Falls as he drove to work at Verizon. He waited a half hour for a tow truck to pull him out.

‘I didn’t expect it (the storm) was going to be a heavy one. That’s why I went to work today. I’m going to stay in a hotel tonight,’ he said.

The risk of power outages raised concerns about people going without heat. More than 100 warming centers were open in 34 towns across Connecticut, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Schools were ordered closed in New York City, many parts of New Jersey, Boston and elsewhere throughout the region.

While kids stayed home, many parents still had to go into work.

Commuters who braved the storm in the morning worried that they could be stranded during the storm’s peak expected later in the day.

‘I don’t know where I’ll stay tonight if I get stuck, probably with my boss,’ said Ran Richardson, 55, of Malden, Massachusetts, as he waited for a Boston subway to take him to training for his job as a Chinese-English translator.

The National Weather Service received multiple reports of coastal flooding in Massachusetts that made roads impassable.

On Plum Island, Massachusetts, residents were evacuated when road connecting the island to Newburyport washed out. Residents were evacuated with a National Guard high-water vehicle.

Seawater was seen rising near buildings in downtown Boston and the suburb of Lynn. One video shows floodwaters carrying a car down the street in the Seaport neighborhood of Boston.

In the district, Joe Weatherly, a 40-year-old artist from Los Angeles, held his Boston terrier while searching for a seafood restaurant. Part of the district was flooded.

‘For someone in California, this is really, really scary. Mind blowing,’ he said. ‘We don’t live in a state where things shut down with the weather. I’ve just never seen this much snow in my life.’

Some 65,000 homes and businesses in the Northeast were without power, though that number was expected to rise as the storm intensified across the region.

More than 5,500 homes and businesses lost power Thursday morning in Provincetown, Massachusetts, on the outermost tip of Cape Cod, which was being lashed with hurricane-force wind gusts, the Eversource electric utility said. Much of that power was restored by early afternoon.

In Maine, the problem was a shortage of drivers to deliver heating fuel. Small independent fuel merchants in particular were overwhelmed by customers who do not have automatic refill service, the Portland Press Herald reported.

Linda Heuman and Amy Remensnyder were supposed to fly to Berlin on Thursday, but the flight was canceled. That left them stuck in their home in Providence, Rhode Island, with no food. So they trekked through the snow to a grocery store nearly a mile away.

Their plans for the rest of the day were simple: Make soup, do some desk work and maybe watch a movie with popcorn, Remensnyder said.

Schools, businesses and ferry services in parts of Atlantic Canada were also shut down. Nova Scotia Power said it had more than 1,000 people at the ready in its biggest-ever pre-storm mobilization of personnel and resources.

Wind gusts strong enough to topple trees and power lines were predicted in the Delmarva Peninsula, which includes parts of Delaware, Virginia and Maryland; coastal New Jersey; eastern Long Island, New York; and coastal eastern New England.

More than two-thirds of flights in and out of New York City and Boston airports were canceled. The flight-tracking site FlightAware reported more than 4,000 flights cancelled in and our of the U.S.

The conditions were so bad in New York City that all flights in and our of JFK and LaGuardia airports were suspended during the storm.

Rail service was affected too. Amtrak planned to operate a modified schedule between New York and Boston on Thursday. Northeast Regional Service between Washington, D.C., and Newport News/Norfolk, Virginia, was canceled for Thursday.

The storm shut down much of eastern Virginia, but some people took it in stride.

Mark Schoenenberger, a 45-year-old NASA engineer who lives in Norfolk, Virginia, put on his cross country skis so he could make a half hour trip to the bagel shop for some breakfast for his family.

‘It’s like ‘Yay, I get to go out,’ he said.

The only concern he seemed to have was telecommuting while his kids were home from school. But ‘it’s just noise,’ he said.

Waiting just behind the she storm was a wave of bracing cold.

National Weather Service Meteorologist Dan Peterson said record low temperatures were predicted for 28 major cities across New England, eastern New York and the mid-Atlantic states by dawn Sunday.

Many places in New England will be colder than Mars on Friday. Today, the high on the Red Planet is -11 degrees. In Mount Washington, New Hampshire tomorrow, temperatures will only reach a high of -16.

Boston expected a low around minus 11 overnight Saturday into Sunday. Portland, Maine, and Burlington, Vermont, could see minus 16 and 19, respectively, the weather service said.

State and local officials urged people to stay home so crews could clear streets and roads of snow. There were concerns in Boston and elsewhere that if roads were not properly cleared, they could freeze into cement-like ice after the cold blast arrives.

In other areas, plummeting temperatures had already caused water mains to burst. Jackson, Mississippi, was under a precautionary boil-water notice after pipes failed. Portable toilets were placed outside the state Capitol because some of the toilets would not flush.

The massive storm began two days ago in the Gulf of Mexico and first struck the Florida Panhandle.

It was so cold in South Florida that iguanas fell from their perches in trees in suburban Miami. The reptiles became immobile when temperatures dipped below 40 degrees Fahrenheit.

In Charleston, South Carolina, five inches of snow was enough for Chris Monoc’s sons, ages four and two, to go sledding.

‘They probably will be teenagers the next time something like this happens,’ Monoc said.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235431/Blizzard-roars-U-S-Northeast-snarling-travel.html (“The ‘bomb cyclone’ has detonated! Whiteout storm hits the Northeast with heavy snow and hurricane-force winds – closing schools and causing traffic chaos as plows run around-the-clock to clear roads and more than 4,000 flights are cancelled“) (emphasis added; charts, diagrams and videos omitted)

As discussed in the article above and the comments beneath it, the eco-Nazis (e.g., Al Gore)—also known as America’s detestable Left and far-Left—appear to be wrong with respect to seemingly everything.

See, e.g., http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/04/al-gore-bitter-cold-is-exactly-what-we-should-expect-from-the-climate-crisis/ (“Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’”—”[A]s recently as 2009, Gore was hyping the lack of snow as evidence for man-made global warming. Other climate activists warned of less cold and snow as well”)

Algore and Global Warming

18 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

U.S. Oil Industry Set To Break Record, Upend Global Trade [UPDATED]

U.S. oil-global dominance

Liz Hampton has written for Reuters:

Surging shale production is poised to push U.S. oil output to more than 10 million barrels per day – toppling a record set in 1970 and crossing a threshold few could have imagined even a decade ago.

And this new record, expected within days, likely won’t last long. The U.S. government forecasts that the nation’s production will climb to 11 million barrels a day by late 2019, a level that would rival Russia, the world’s top producer.

The economic and political impacts of soaring U.S. output are breathtaking, cutting the nation’s oil imports by a fifth over a decade, providing high-paying jobs in rural communities and lowering consumer prices for domestic gasoline by 37 percent from a 2008 peak.

Fears of dire energy shortages that gripped the country in the 1970s have been replaced by a presidential policy of global “energy dominance.”

“It has had incredibly positive impacts for the U.S. economy, for the workforce and even our reduced carbon footprint” as shale natural gas has displaced coal at power plants, said John England, head of consultancy Deloitte’s U.S. energy and resources practice.

U.S. energy exports now compete with Middle East oil for buyers in Asia. Daily trading volumes of U.S. oil futures contracts have more doubled in the past decade, averaging more than 1.2 billion barrels per day in 2017, according to exchange operator CME Group.

The U.S. oil price benchmark, West Texas Intermediate crude, is now watched closely worldwide by foreign customers of U.S. gasoline, diesel and crude.

The question of whether the shale sector can continue at this pace remains an open debate. The rapid growth has stirred concerns that the industry is already peaking and that production forecasts are too optimistic.

The costs of labor and contracted services have recently risen sharply in the most active oilfields; drillable land prices have soared; and some shale financiers are calling on producers to focus on improving short-term returns rather than expanding drilling.

But U.S. producers have already far outpaced expectations and overcome serious challenges, including the recent effort by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to sink shale firms by flooding global markets with oil.

The cartel of oil-producing nations backed down in November 2016 and enacted production cuts amid pressure from their own members over low prices – which had plunged to below $27 earlier that year from more than $100 a barrel in 2014.

Shale producers won the price war through aggressive cost-cutting and rapid advances in drilling technology. Oil now trades above $64 a barrel, enough for many U.S. producers to finance both expanded drilling and dividends for shareholders.

BOOMING OIL EXPORTS

Efficiencies spurred by the battle with OPEC – including faster drilling, better well designs and more fracking – helped U.S. firms produce enough oil to successfully lobby for the repeal of a ban on oil exports. In late 2015, Congress overturned the prohibition it had imposed following OPEC’s 1973 embargo.

The United States now exports up to 1.7 million barrels per day of crude, and this year will have the capacity to export 3.8 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. Terminals conceived for importing liquefied natural gas have now been overhauled to allow exports.

That export demand, along with surging production in remote locations such as West Texas and North Dakota, has led to a boom in U.S. pipeline construction. Firms including Kinder Morgan and Enterprise Products Partners added 26,000 miles of liquids pipelines in the five years between 2012 and 2016, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Several more multi-billion-dollar pipeline projects are on the drawing board.

U.S. drillers say they can supply plenty more.

“We continue to see and drive improvements” in drilling speed and efficiency, said Mathias Schlecht, a technology vice president at Baker Hughes, General Electric Co’s oilfield services business.

New wells can be drilled in as little as a week, he said. A few years ago, it could take up to a month.

TECHNOLOGY OPENS UP NEW FIELDS

The next phase of shale output growth depends on techniques to squeeze more oil from each well. Companies are now putting sensors on drill bits to more precisely access oil deposits, using artificial intelligence and remote operators to get the most out of equipment and trained engineers.

As expanded investments push more producers to add wells in less productive regions, technology will help make those plays more profitable, said Kate Richard, chief executive of Warwick Energy Group, which owns interests in more than 5,000 U.S. wells.

In an interview, she estimated about a third of the money from private equity investments in shale will be used to wring more oil from overlooked regions.

Higher prices – up about $10 a barrel in the last two months – also may encourage the industry to work through a backlog of some 7,300 drilled-but-uncompleted shale wells that have built up because of crew and equipment shortages.

The higher prices have suppliers that provide hydraulic fracturing services, such as Keane Group and Liberty Oilfield Services, buying expensive new equipment in anticipation of more work.

U.S. fracking service revenues are expected to grow by 20 percent this year, approaching a record of $29 billion set in 2014, according to oilfield research firm Spears & Associates.

OIL MAJORS JOIN SHALE FRAY

The shale revolution initially upended the traditional industry hierarchy, making billionaires out of wildcatters such as Harold Hamm, who founded Continental Resources, and the late Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy.

Top U.S. oil firms such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron a decade ago turned much of their focus to foreign fields, leaving smaller firms to develop U.S. shale. Now they’re back, buying shale companies, land and shifting more investments back home from overseas.

Exxon last year agreed to pay up to $6.6 billion for land in the Permian basin, the epicenter of U.S. shale. Chevron this year plans to spend $4.3 billion on shale development.

The majors’ shift is driving up costs for labor and drillable land in the region, another boost to wages and wealth in rural areas.

In the shale industry hub of Midland, Texas, unemployment has fallen to a mere 2.6 percent, said Willie Taylor, executive director of the Permian Basin Workforce Development Board, a group that helps firms find staff.

Companies are now offering signing bonuses to attract workers to West Texas. One oil company flies workers to Midland from Houston weekly to fill a local labor void, he said.

“It was an employer’s market,” he said. “Now it’s more of a job seeker’s market.”

See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-record-shale-analysis/u-s-oil-industry-set-to-break-record-upend-global-trade-idUSKBN1F50HV (“U.S. oil industry set to break record, upend global trade“) (emphasis added; chart omitted); see also https://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelas-oil-industry-takes-a-fall-1516271401 (“Venezuela’s Oil Production Is Collapsing“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-oil-production-tops-10-million-barrels-a-day-for-first-time-since-1970-1517429674 (“U.S. Oil Production Tops 10 Million Barrels A Day for First Time Since 1970“)

Not only does this bode well for the U.S. economy, and American jobs and global energy dominance, but it also puts another nail into the coffin of Russia’s killer Putin, and hastens his demise.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/the-death-of-putin-and-russia-the-final-chapter-of-the-cold-war/ (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“)

And as discussed in the article above and the extensive comments beneath it, the “hoax” of man-made “global warming” is exposed for all to see.

Bald Eagle and American flag

21 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Huckster Tesla Founder Rewarded

Tesla fail

Robert Ferris and Phil LeBeau have written about the radical Left’s supercar for CNBC:

Tesla shareholders have approved by a wide margin a proposal to award Chairman and CEO Elon Musk a massive multibillion-dollar stock grant, a source at the meeting told CNBC.

Musk could earn more than $50 billion over the next several years if Tesla hits certain key milestones and stays on in his current role at the company he co-founded.

The source who reported the vote count declined to be identified. Official vote totals will be announced in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission later Wednesday.

The grant gives Musk $2.6 billion in stock options in 12 tranches that each vest as the company hits key performance milestones over 10 years.

Musk needs to hit 12 market capitalization milestones and 16 revenue or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization targets in order to vest the entire award. Tesla has to reach a market cap of $100 billion for the first tranche to vest, and then each of the remaining 11 tranches require an additional $50 billion in market value.

In addition to that, there are 16 operational milestones: eight focused on increasing revenue from $20 billion up to $175 billion, and another eight targeting adjusted EBITDA milestones ranging from $1.5 billion to $14 billion.

Each of the 12 tranches vests when Tesla hits a market cap milestone and one of the two kinds of operational milestones.

Throughout all of this, Musk must remain either CEO or executive chairman and chief product officer.

Ultimately, Musk could earn up to $55.8 billion in stock and awards, if Tesla’s market cap reaches $650 billion. It is currently around $52 billion. Musk will receive no other compensation for his work at Tesla outside this plan.

Supporters have said the plan will align Musk with shareholders and potentially greatly increase the company’s value. They argue shareholders are likely to benefit from Musk’s efforts whether or not he hits the targets.

The plan is also meant to keep Musk from jumping ship for one of his other many projects in areas such as commercial space and artificial intelligence. Musk had previously hinted he was considering reducing his responsibilities at Tesla at some point in the next several years.

Finally, the grant is designed to push Tesla toward fulfilling the vision Musk laid out in his “Master Plan,” where he outlined a future for Tesla as a fully integrated sustainable energy company and mass-market electric automaker.

“If all of these milestones were to be achieved,” said Tesla’s proxy statement, “Tesla will have meaningfully achieved its mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy and will have become one of the most valuable and successful companies in the world. This is our ambition.”

Tesla shares were recently trading up almost 4 percent.

“Investors aren’t bothered by the fact that Tesla lost more money than people thought they would, or have had continued Model 3 misses,” Loup Ventures managing partner Gene Munster told CNBC. “They see a bigger opportunity over the long term, and that opportunity is figuring out the trifecta between energy capture, storage and use.”

Some large institutional shareholders supported the proposal, such as T. Rowe Price, which has a 6.4 percent stake in Tesla.

But some analysts are skeptical of the plan.

CFRA analyst Efraim Levy reiterated his sell rating on Tesla after the vote.

“We view the arrangement as a potential win-win for both shareholders and Musk, as the objectives are aligned to a shareholder-friendly combination of aggressive market capitalization objectives as well as a series of operational targets,” Levy said. “Still, we question why Musk has to be incentivized so highly given his high equity interest in TSLA and risks to his personal reputation. We view TSLA shares as expensive at current valuations, despite our forecast of 2019 profitability.”

And proxy advisors Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) recommended rejecting the proposal, citing its high cost, potential to dilute shares and other issues. Glass Lewis called the sheer upfront cost of the plan “staggering,” and said it has serious potential to dilute the stock.

“The absolute costs to shareholders of this grant if approved and earned are substantial, but the amount of share capital used is even more eye watering on a relative basis,” the firm said.

ISS said the plan provides “pay opportunities over the next 10 years that dwarf those of top executives at the largest and most profitable public companies.”

The firm also said that Musk can earn a lot of money under the plan even if Tesla does not achieve sustained profitability.

“Three-quarters of the award may vest even if the company does not meet any of the commensurate adjusted EBITDA hurdles, the only profitability metric included in the plan,” the ISS report said.

Musk and his brother Kimbal recused themselves from the vote. Both are Tesla board members. Musk already owns about 20 percent of Tesla shares, which ISS said was already enough of a stake to consider Musk’s interests aligned with those of shareholders.

The vote comes at a time when Tesla shares are dropping from an all-time high set in September, over concerns about the Model 3 production ramp.

See https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.html (“Elon Musk could make $55 billion from new pay plan…if he delivers“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“)

This is tantamount to rewarding the captain of the Titanic just before it descended to Davy Jones’ Locker.

Pure madness, especially when there are strong signs that Tesla’s demise may be approaching.

See, e.g., https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-make-or-break-moment-is-fast-approaching-1521111603 (“Tesla’s Make-Or-Break Moment Is Fast Approaching”—”Musk has good reason to worry about Tesla. The auto maker is entering one of the most critical phases in its history, a make-or-break period in which Tesla must boost production of the Model 3 or possibly face severe financial consequences”—”Tesla burned through on average about $1 billion a quarter last year, largely because of heavy investments to bring production of the Model 3 online. That left it with nearly $3.4 billion in cash at year-end, suggesting that at a similar pace it would be out of cash later this year unless it can raise more funds or substantially boost production”—”Since going public in 2010, Tesla has burned through about $10 billion in cash, an unusually large sum for a publicly traded U.S. company of its size”—”[Musk] is grappling with these challenges after losing a number of financial executives. In recent days, Tesla’s chief accounting officer and treasurer both left, following last year’s exit of the financial chief and last month’s departure of the top sales executive”—”Tesla is no longer a startup. It is a 38,000-person company that is trying to compete with the world’s largest auto makers”—”Some investors are watching indicators of credit strength that are generally regarded as a gauge of a company’s likelihood of bankruptcy, such as the ‘Altman Z-Score’ . . . Based on the Z-Score formula—which takes into account a number of variables, including share price, working capital, retained earnings and other items—Tesla had a score of 1.26, its lowest score for any quarter since 2014. Any company with a score below 1.8 is considered distressed by many investors. A score of 1.0 or lower suggests bankruptcy is likely within two years”); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Jones%27_Locker (“Davy Jones’ Locker“)

3 04 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

More Insanity From The Lawless State Of California [UPDATED]

Tesla fail

Russ Mitchell has written in the Los Angeles Times:

California began accepting applications Monday for permits to deploy self-driving cars on public roads without a human backup driver at the wheel.

Recent fatal crashes by a self-driving Uber car in Arizona and a Tesla car operating in semiautonomous Autopilot mode in California have put a spotlight on safety, and on Monday the California Department of Motor Vehicles sent out a list of safety requirements that permit applicants must meet.

Among them, vehicles must:

• Meet federal motor vehicle standards
• Show results from tests that simulate real-world driving
• Come with a two-way communications link
• Be incapable of being operated autonomously outside the territory or driving conditions stated on the application
• And hew to current industry standards to prevent cyberattacks.

Those requirements aren’t new — the DMV issued regulations Feb. 28 — but they provide a quick overview focusing on safety.

The DMV also noted Monday that under state driverless regulations, it can immediately suspend or revoke permits over practices it deems unsafe.

See http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-dmv-driverless-safety-20180402-story.html (“California starts accepting applications for driverless car permits“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“)

How many more Californians and visitors to the State must die before people come to their senses?

4 05 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

CRUSH PUTIN: U.S. TO BECOME WORLD’S TOP OIL EXPORTER

U.S. oil: global dominance

Tim Daiss has written at OilPrice.com:

As global oil markets shift their attention from U.S. shale oil production back to a resurgent Saudi Arabia and Russia and geopolitical concerns bearing down on oil prices, Citigroup said last Wednesday that the U.S. is poised to surpass Saudi Arabia next year as the world’s largest exporter of crude and oil products.

The U.S. exported a record 8.3 million barrels per day (bpd) last week of crude oil and petroleum products, the government also said Wednesday. Top crude oil exporter Saudi Arabia’s, for its part, exported 9.3 million bpd in January, while Russia exported 7.4 million bpd, the bank added.

However, it should also be noted that the Citi projection is for both crude and finished (refined) petroleum products, not only crude oil. Saudi Arabia remains the world’s largest exporter of crude, though since January amid the OPEC/non-OPEC production cut agreement that figure has fallen. On April 10, the Saudi oil minister said that the kingdom planned to keep its crude oil shipments in May below 7 million bpd for the 12th consecutive month.

Saudi Arabia has also trimmed its oil production more than 100 percent of the output cuts it agreed to under the January 2017 production deal. In March, Saudi crude production was at 9.91 million bpd, below the deal’s output target of 10.058 million bpd.

Russia, however, also part of the global oil protection cut agreement, increased its crude oil production by 0.2 percent to 10.97 million bpd in March, compared to the previous month and an 11-month high.

Though Citi has projected that the U.S. could bypass Saudi Arabia in the export of crude and petroleum products, U.S. crude oil exports have been relatively low compared to other major oil producers since the Obama Administration lifted the ban of American crude oil exports in 2015.

Nonetheless, U.S. crude exports are poised for an upward trajectory. On Wednesday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said the U.S. crude exports last week increased by 582,000 bpd to 2.331 bpd, an all-time high.

Profiting from arbitrage

The reason for the spike in exports also comes from the price divergence (arbitrage) between London-traded, global benchmark Brent crude and NYMEX, U.S.-benchmark, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices. As the spread between the two benchmarks widens, WTI trades at a significant cost advantage against Brent as well as other crude benchmarks. The WTI discount is a boon for refineries, particularly in Asia, that need the light sweet crude which yields higher priced refined petroleum products.

U.S. crude is also competing for market share in China against traditional exporters Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran. China for its part seems to be pivoting away from Saudi oil as the kingdom continues to increase its official selling price (OSP) for Arab Light crude.

On Tuesday, Unipec, the trading arm of state-run Sinopec Group, said that it plans to continue to cut their Saudi Arabian crude oil purchases for June and July loadings, after slashing May shipments by 40 percent. Unipec executives said that Arab Light crude is no longer competitive against other crude blends. Unipec executives have said previously that such prices increases were “unreasonable.” Sinopec is Asia’s largest refiner.

Saudi Aramco is expected to raise its OSPs by at least 50 cents a barrel for June cargoes to track increases in benchmark Middle East crude Dubai this month, Reuters said, citing two traders that participate in the market.

Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as China’s top crude oil supplier in 2017. Saudi Arabia remained the second largest supplier to China in Q1 this year, although its exports were down 5.7 percent from a year ago.

U.S. crude is also finding more buyers in Europe due to the Brent/WTI arbitrage. Market sources have estimated U.S. exports to Europe would average 800,000 bpd between mid-May and mid-June, including 25 million barrels in May overall. One source, according to a report in Hellenic Shipping News, said that of the 25 million barrels expected to land in May, 15 million barrels had already been placed with end-users.

“We are seeing record arrivals from the US to Europe,” a trader said, adding that while all sorts of grades were crossing the Atlantic, WTI Midland represented the largest portion.

See https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Citi-US-To-Become-Worlds-Top-Oil-Exporter.html (“U.S. To Become World’s Top Oil Exporter“) (emphasis added)

Aside from supplying our needs, the United States must supply Europe and China more aggressively.

No mercy must be shown to Russia’s killer Putin. He must meet a fate similar to that of Benito Mussolini before him.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/the-death-of-putin-and-russia-the-final-chapter-of-the-cold-war/ (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ (“Russia’s Putin Is A Killer“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin%E2%80%99s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao%E2%80%99s-chinese-holocaust/ (“The Silent Voices Of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust And Mao’s Chinese Holocaust“)

Putin's death

7 05 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

California Has Gone Berserk Again! [UPDATED]

The eco-Nazis are at it again. Jon Fingas has written for Engadget:

There’s no question that solar power is entering the mainstream, but California is about to give it a giant boost. The state’s Energy Commission is expected to approve new energy standards that would require solar panels on the roofs of nearly all new homes, condos and apartment buildings from 2020 onward. There will be exemptions for homes that either can’t fit solar panels or would be blocked by taller buildings or trees, but you’ll otherwise have to go green if your property is brand new.

The plan doesn’t require that a home reach net-zero status (where the solar power completely offsets the energy consumed in a year). However, it does provide “compliance credits” for homebuilders who install storage batteries like Tesla’s Powerwall, letting them build smaller panel arrays knowing that excess energy will be available to use off-hours.

The new standards are poised to hike construction costs by $25,000 to $30,000 (about half of which is directly due to solar), but the self-produced energy is estimated to save owners $50,000 to $60,000 in operating costs over the solar technology’s expected 25-year lifespan.

Short of a surprise rejection at the Energy Commission’s May 9th vote, this will make California the first state to have a solar panel requirement. It’s relatively easy to do this in the region given California’s abundance of warm, sunny days and high real estate prices — it’s hard to see this happening in the American Midwest, where winter and lower home prices could make solar decidedly less practical. Critics have complained that this could make California’s housing shortage worse by pricing people out of those homes that are available, and note that most people in the state only really draw on non-renewable energy when they come home from work and strain the electrical grid.

Even so, this could change the landscape for both California’s energy and the market as a whole. Right now, no more than 20 percent of new single-family homes in California include solar power. Boost that by five times and that’s a lot more business for panel makers and installers. That, in turn, could reduce the costs of panels and make solar more affordable in many places, not just in California or even the US.

See https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/ (“California to require solar panels on most new homes“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-12825 (“More Insanity From The Lawless State Of California“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-11095 (“MORE CALIFORNIA LUNACY: EDISON SAYS STATE NEEDS ONE-QUARTER OF ITS VEHICLES TO BE ELECTRIC“)

California’s eco-Nazis/Freaks are really on a roll . . . toward becoming the most hated state in the nation.

7 05 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Climate Skeptics More Eco-Friendly Than Global Warming Alarmists [UPDATED]

algore and global warming

Valerie Richardson has written in The Washington Times:

Al Gore has been accused of hypocrisy for talking the talk on climate change despite burning through fossil fuels at a rapid clip, but it turns out he’s not alone.

A study by Cornell and the University of Michigan researchers found that those “highly concerned” about climate change were less likely to engage in recycling and other eco-friendly behaviors than global-warming skeptics.

Published in the April edition of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the one-year study broke 600 participants into three groups based on their level of concern about climate change: “highly concerned,” “cautiously worried,” and “skeptical.”

The “highly concerned” cluster was “most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the ‘Skeptical’ opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the researchers concluded.

Conducting the study, entitled “Believing in climate change but not behaving sustainably,” were Cornell assistant professor Neil A. Lewis Jr. and University of Michigan researchers Michael P. Hall and Phoebe C. Ellsworth.

The skeptics were the more likely than the “highly concerned” to recycle, use public transportation and reusable shopping bags, and buy eco-friendly products.

“Belief in climate change predicted support for government policies to combat climate change, but did not generally translate to individual-level, self-reported pro-environmental behavior,” said the paper.

Why? Even the researchers were stumped, although it’s possible that skeptics may place more emphasis on personal responsibility than government action.

“These results suggest that different groups may prefer different strategies for addressing climate change,” said the paper. “Thus, belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior, indicating that changing skeptical Americans’ minds need not be a top priority for climate policymakers.

As Pacific Standard’s Tom Jacobs put it, “remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts.”

“So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis,” he said in a Friday post.

Mr. Gore, a leading climate-change activist, has long come under fire for his carbon-emitting ways, such as burning 21 times more kilowatt hours annually at his Nashville mansion than the average U.S. household, according to a 2017 study by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

His swimming pool alone uses enough electricity to power six average homes for a year, the study said.

Mr. Gore told CNN last year that he leads a “carbon-free lifestyle to the maximum extent possible,” pointing out that he doesn’t own a private jet and that he buys carbon offsets to balance his home and flights on Southwest Airlines.

See https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/7/climate-skeptics-more-eco-friendly-global-warming-/ (“Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study“) (emphasis added)

Perhaps most importantly, few Americans believe in man-made “global warming” or climate change.

See, e.g., http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/ (“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate”)

On a personal note, Al Gore and his then-wife Tipper rented a fancy home in California from a friend of mine, on a relatively-short-term basis. They moved all of his furniture out, and brought in rental furniture to their liking, and then moved his furniture back in when the term of their rental ended. In the process, they broke a water fountain on his property.

Algore is a shining example of, and the “poster child” for the eco-Nazis in this world, like those described in my article above and in the comments beneath it. I voted against him when he ran for the presidency because I believe he is a total fraud.

As my article stated:

In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too. So-called man-made “global warming” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.”

I have been a hiker since I was a Boy Scout and Explorer Scout, and I am a lover of Nature. I recycle, use public transportation at times, always use reusable shopping bags, and buy eco-friendly products. I pick up others’ trash when I hike, etc., etc.

And having engaged in boating for decades—on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Adriatic Sea and other bodies of water—I am appalled at the pollution globally. Of particular concern is the “Great Pacific garbage patch” that is about three times the size of France today, as well as other gyres of marine debris particles in the world.

See, e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch (“Great Pacific garbage patch“)

However, I do not believe in man-made global warming at all, for the reasons articulated in my article above and in the extensive comments beneath it.

23 05 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Musk-Tesla Bubble! [UPDATED]

Tesla fail

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. has written in the Wall Street Journal:

Our answer, strictly from the shareholder’s standpoint, is no. This good-governance nostrum, like many, is case-specific. It’s a good idea for a company for which it is a good idea. It’s not a good idea for Tesla because the main thing holding up the stock price is Mr. Musk’s image as a conjurer, and any move suggesting the board is questioning his magical potency could be fatal for the Musk bubble.

Mr. Musk has fenced with analysts lately over whether he needs to raise fresh capital this year amid struggles to get the Model 3 into production. The discussion is modestly irrelevant, though, because Mr. Musk keeps laying out grand plans that will certainly require gobs of fresh capital in future years.

All this rests on the stock- and debt-buying public adopting a hazy, not quite explicit belief that Mr. Musk represents the green future and that public policy will fall in line behind him and guarantee his success.

The importance of this factor is apparent when you consider a simple question: To a customer looking to get the most utility at the best price, will electric cars ever be able to compete with gasoline-powered cars, short of government interventions that raise the price of and eventually prohibit gasoline-powered cars?

The answer is no. Mr. Musk himself has opined that gasoline should cost $10 a gallon. His big commitment to lithium-ion technology is tantamount to a bet that no battery breakthroughs are in the offing to fix the range and charging drawbacks that are the main handicap of electric vehicles. His answer to every critic, as well as to the California Air Resources Board and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration when they are less than fully obliging, has been: How dare you endanger the planet by erecting obstacles to the advent of green transportation?

Tesla in theory should be a beneficiary of the Trump administration’s rollback of fuel-mileage targets—it reduces the incentive of other auto makers to build electric cars and dump them on the market at a big loss. Yet one senses Mr. Musk’s ambivalence. If investors perceive that public policy no longer is hotly devoted to promoting electric vehicles, the Musk bubble could quickly deflate.

Electric cars are no solution to climate change, but having buyers believe they are, and having investors believe that government, media and green groups will treat them as if they are, is a key prop under Tesla’s stock.

Thus an ominous warning is the new Consumer Reports, which withholds a favorable rating from the Model 3 because of erratic braking and poorly designed touch-screen controls. Consumer Reports has apparently rediscovered its mettle. Three years ago, the magazine tossed out its traditional, objective criteria to sing the praises of another Tesla model as a shining tribute to green politics and policy.

If the air must come out of the Tesla bubble, we’re glad that civic culture is doing the job. There was never much hope or any great need for the Securities and Exchange Commission to go after Mr. Musk for pie-in-the-sky forecasts that investors knew were pie-in-the-sky and welcomed as Muskian gusts of hot air to keep the stock aloft.

There is no need now for the Federal Trade Commission to intervene in response to the gripes of those who put down $1,000 deposits for his alleged $35,000 Model 3 only to discover the fine print: Tesla is entitled to move them perennially to the end of the line in favor of customers who are willing to fork up for the fully loaded ($78,000) version.

Mr. Musk has discovered, or invented, a market for electric cars. And that’s great. Whether buyers really want electric cars, or just want high-end emblems of green virtue, it can be a good business either way.

Unlike the DeLorean, Mr. Musk’s vehicles live up to expectations as long as those expectations are reasonable. As this lesson is taken to heart, we expect to see fewer Teslas in Thanksgiving traffic on I-95 making the last miles to grandma’s house on the back of a flatbed truck.

What we have yet to see, from Tesla or any other manufacturer, is that customers are willing to buy electric cars at prices resembling the cost of making them. Here may reside Mr. Musk’s real missed opportunity. He could have aimed to become a niche maker of electric fetish objects, and done so at a price point that would not require endless subsidies from the taxpayer or stock investors.

He had a chance to show that an electric-car maker with realistic ambitions could be a profitable, self-sustaining member of the auto-manufacturing community. Right now, his fans are stuck with the hope that some combination of the Musk bubble plus public policy will make their bet on Tesla stock come out all right.

See https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-last-temptation-of-elon-musk-1527029093 (“The Last Temptation of Elon Musk“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“)

For all of the reasons cited at the link immediately above, the Tesla is doomed and destined for the ash heap of history—except perhaps as an immobile collectors’ item, because it is unlikely that replacement batteries will be available.

Also, because Musk is bipolar, his downward and irrational trajectory is predictable with a fair degree of certainty. It is simply a matter of time before it become apparent and he implodes.

Lastly, Teslas are the “high-end emblems of green virtue” and the “poster children” of eco-Nazis, who are an anathema to most Americans.

19 07 2018
Ron Michaels

Why is it that zealotry always seems to be so argumentative and single-minded? Always insulting and combative from their first comment to their last? Although there are a zillion opportunities for constructive conversations, zealots seem to have decided to start with “disagreeable” and work downhill

19 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Fascinating, constructive and well-articulated observations. Thank you, Ron.

23 07 2018
key508

Its all to try to control the people. They tell lies long enough, people start to believe they are true. Al Gore makes a lot of money from his lies.

23 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

I agree up to a point.

However, recent Gallup polling indicates that the American people are not buying it anymore.

See http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/ (“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate”)

25 07 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Passing Of An Auto Giant [UPDATED]

Sergio Marchionne

I grew up in Los Angeles, talking cars over the dinner table with my father, many nights. Our spirited and stimulating discussions were not music to my mother’s ears, but we persevered.

When he came to Los Angeles as a young man from Minneapolis, where my parents were born and raised, he had sold Buicks and Cadillacs in Beverly Hills, and was a star salesman, and a coveted Cadillac “merit man.” I still have his diamond-encrusted ring to prove it.

He argued that General Motors cars were the best, and I argued that Ford cars were the best. We agreed, however, that Chrysler vehicles were the worst, and really not worth talking about.

With few exceptions, he always drove new Cadillacs, long after he left the auto business to establish real estate offices in the Encino and Brentwood suburbs of LA, before the advent of the mega-firms.

I bought Ford stock when it was first offered to the public; and my first four cars were Fords, culminating with the purchase of a new pony car, the Mustang, which was my pride and joy.

Fast forward to the Crash of 2008, and Chrysler was on the ropes. GM and Ford were too, but Bill Ford and Boeing’s Alan Mulally who had become Ford’s president put together a winning plan to save Ford without going into bankruptcy.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally

They hunkered down and sold off Aston Martin, Land Rover, Volvo, Jaguar, Ford’s dominant interest in Mazda, and consigned the Mercury to the dustbin of auto history. In the process, they succeeded impressively. Today, Fords are the largest selling vehicles in the United States; and the Ford F-Series trucks outsell all other vehicles.

Both GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy; and with his Fiat conglomerate hanging by a thread, its gutsy chief Sergio Marchionne bought Chrysler, and the rest is business history. Marchionne saved both companies.

Indeed, the UK’s Economist has paid tribute to the man, and what he accomplished:

THE question of who would replace Sergio Marchionne has been in the air for a year or more, ever since the chief executive of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) announced that he would step down in 2019. But the way the answer came was both shocking and sad. Mr Marchionne’s death, at the age of 66, was announced on July 25th, the result of complications after an operation. A sudden deterioration in his health had already forced FCA’s board to meet on July 21st to confirm that Mike Manley, boss of the Jeep and Ram brands, would take his place.

Mr Manley had little time to establish himself before coming under scrutiny. He opened a presentation of the firm’s second-quarter results on July 25th with a tribute to a “special, unique man”. Although he had to explain falling revenues and profits and a cut in forecasts for 2018 that sent the firm’s shares into a steep slide, he also confirmed that it was at last free of debt, one of Mr Marchionne’s main aims for FCA. The former CEO had described getting rid of the nearly $13bn debt pile as a “healing process” for Fiat and Chrysler.

Mr Marchionne will be a difficult act to follow. He is regarded as one of the all-time stars of the car industry, having rescued Fiat from near-bankruptcy in 2004 and then repeating the trick at Chrysler, acquired in the wake of the financial crisis in 2009. Hard-working even by the standards of big-name chief executives, he claimed that his customary outfit of a crumpled black sweater saved him wasting time choosing a suit. He could be blunt, but he was also erudite, witty and outspoken in an era when bosses have become ever more wary of courting controversy.

Coming from outside the car industry—he trained as an accountant rather than working his way up through the ranks—helped him bring a fresh eye to its financial shortcomings. Profits in the mass market are slender at best, the result of too much duplicated investment under the bonnet on technologies that are indistinguishable to car buyers, he reckoned.

His proposed solution was mega-mergers to share costs, ending up in a world with only a handful of vast carmakers. Other car bosses, though sharing his diagnosis of the problem, have preferred loose alliances, which can deliver savings but not on the same scale as a merger. The failure of previous big deals helps explain their reticence. Mr Marchionne was one of the few bosses that pulled one off, bringing together Fiat and Chrysler. Always on the lookout for a deal (almost every large carmaker has been rumoured as a merger partner over the years) some analysts had suggested that he had one last big transaction in the works before he stepped down.

Any such dealmaking will now fall to Mr Manley. FCA had always promised that Mr Marchionne’s successor would come from within. Mr Manley, a British former car salesman, has worked his way up through the company to head the Jeep division, one of the best-performing parts of FCA. He was heavily involved in the latest five-year plan, unveiled in June, which calls for big leaps in sales and profitability, particularly at Jeep.

Mr Marchionne’s achievement is that Mr Manley will not have as tough a task as he faced. Through smart management, cost-cutting and canny capital allocation, much of the drama has been taken out of FCA. He spun off businesses such as CNH, Fiat’s industrial arm, and Ferrari, a maker of pricey sports cars; he had been preparing Magneti Marelli, the firm’s parts business, for life on its own. He exited the business of making saloon cars in America in favour of popular, profitable SUVs well before Ford and General Motors did the same. And he repurposed factories in Italy that made barely profitable small cars into plants producing premium Alfa Romeos, Maseratis and Jeeps. In short he turned FCA into what Jefferies, a bank, calls a “normal” carmaker.

That does not mean Mr Manley’s job is easy. The five-year plan calls for selling many more Jeeps and Ram pickups, which already generate two-thirds of revenues and most of the profits. It also includes a big expansion of the premium Alfa and Maserati brands, which have for years remained tantalisingly on the verge of a comeback. Like all other car bosses Mr Manley also has to deal with the threat of a global trade war as well as negotiating a future of electric cars, mobility services and autonomous cars, which will require vast investments with uncertain outcomes.

He will do so without the assistance of Alfredo Altavilla, one of his rivals for the top job, who announced his departure on July 23rd. Richard Palmer, the firm’s well-respected CFO and another candidate for the chief executive role, will stay on.

Mr Manley’s elevation was not the only decision for John Elkann, chairman of Exor, the Agnelli family’s investment firm which controls FCA. (Mr Elkann also sits on the board of The Economist’s parent company.) He had to find a new boss for Ferrari, which Mr Marchionne had been expected to lead until at least 2021. Louis Camilleri, a former tobacco executive, will run it. The job of chairing CNH has gone to Suzanne Heywood (who is also on the board of The Economist Group).

FCA’s new leadership and Mr Elkann have more big decisions ahead, above all whether the world’s seventh-largest carmaker is big enough to survive in an era of autonomy and electrification. The list of potential partners is dwindling. Most of the big Western carmakers already have enough on their plates to consider a mega-merger as well; China’s emergent giants lack the cash to buy FCA. Mr Marchionne’s feat is that he built a group that is for now strong enough to stand alone, if it has to.

See https://www.economist.com/business/2018/07/25/the-death-of-sergio-marchionne-leaves-a-big-gap-at-fca (“The death of Sergio Marchionne leaves a big gap at FCA“) (emphasis added); see also http://www.autonews.com/article/20180725/VIDEO/307259995/autonews-now-sergio-stories-tributes-tweets-and-one-special-memory (“Sergio stories: Tributes, tweets and one special memory“)

Like the Ford family’s effective control of Ford today by reason of a special class of stock set up by Henry Ford, as the article states Fiat Chrysler is controlled by Exor, which in turn is controlled by Italy’s Agnelli family.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exor_(company) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianni_Agnelli

. . .

On another but related note, the threshold sign that General Motors may be in trouble is that it stopped reporting monthly sales back in April.

As many of us know who follow such figures, the Wall Street Journal stopped publishing them because of GM. Indeed, it announced at the top of its reporting page:

NOTICE TO READERS: Due to General Motor’s decision to end monthly sale reporting, Motor Intelligence will no longer produce a monthly Auto sales report. Our source may provide a quarterly report, but at this time a decision has not been made.

See http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesE (“Auto Sales“)

This was a drastic decision by GM’s management, which reported such figures during the last auto sales crisis. Will the next one be far worse for GM; and is it telegraphing that result now? Will Fiat Chrysler survive, while GM fails—again?

Hold on tight. GM’s ride may be rough at best.

GM fails

3 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Eco-Nazis: Join Us in Supporting Straws On Request [UPDATED]

Ban on straws

The Monterey Bay Aquarium has sent out the following message:

Join Us in Supporting Straws On Request

Plastic is in every part of the ocean, threatening marine wildlife from seabirds to turtles. The equivalent of a garbage truck full of plastic ends up in the ocean every minute—and if we don’t make changes now, that rate will double by 2025.

The good news is, we can do something about it! In California, the Straws On Request bill (AB 1884) would give us the choice to skip the straws we don’t need.

Through this bill, dine-in restaurants across the state would provide straws only to people who ask for them—reducing the number of disposable plastic straws used in California, and slowing the flow of plastic from land to sea.

Californians treasure our iconic coastline and remarkable ocean wildlife. The Straws On Request bill is another example of our state leading the way to protect them.

Urge your California legislators to support the Straws On Request bill!

See http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/straws?mpweb=1321-262-20569; see also https://www.change.org/p/ask-costco-to-stop-selling-styrofoam-products/sign (“Ask Costco to stop selling styrofoam products“) and https://apnews.com/71082d3bb77e44a59408a69bc58caf89 (“A rising concern? After straws, balloons get more scrutiny“)

It is clear that the wacko eco-Nazis are out in full force.

There is an outright ban on straws already, in parts of California. This is outrageous, and another example of California’s eco-Nazis at work. Responsible people depose of straws and other plastics, and styrofoam products.

If the Aquarium and eco-Nazis REALLY wanted to make a contribution to the planet, they would act now to clean up the “Great Pacific garbage patch” that is about three times the size of France today, as well as other gyres of marine debris in the world.

See, e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch (“Great Pacific garbage patch“) and https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/08/07/giant-floating-trash-collector-heads-pacific-garbage-patch/831803002/ (“A giant floating trash collector heads for Pacific garbage patch“) and https://apnews.com/47a3d74f8a3f4a6e917b32c371b85568/Massive-boom-will-corral-Pacific-Ocean's-plastic-trash (“Massive boom hopes to corral Pacific Ocean’s plastic trash“)

However, it is doubtful that they really want to help. Clearly, the straw initiative is pure lunacy, which drives many away from the fine Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Needless to say, eco-Nazis just babble, and turn off the vast majority of Americans.

See, e.g., http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/ (“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/the-death-of-new-york-city/#comment-14512 (“A Predictable Train Wreck: California’s Bullet-Train Boondoggle“)

9 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

FEDS INTENSIFY TESLA PROBE

Tesla fail

Matt Robinson, Ben Bain and Dana Hull have written for Bloomberg:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is intensifying its scrutiny of Tesla Inc.’s public statements in the wake of Elon Musk’s provocative tweet Tuesday about taking the electric-car company private, according to two people familiar with the matter.

SEC enforcement attorneys in the San Francisco office were already gathering general information about Tesla’s public pronouncements on manufacturing goals and sales targets, according to the people who asked not to be named because the review is private.

Now, attorneys from that office are also examining whether Musk’s tweet about having funding secured to buy out the company was meant to be factual, according to one of the people.

The SEC inquiry is preliminary and won’t necessarily lead to anything more formal. Tesla, which hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing, declined to comment. Judith Burns, an SEC spokeswoman, also declined to comment.

Tesla stock fell 4.8 percent to $352.45 in Thursday trading amid mounting doubts about Musk’s ability to buy out shareholders at $420, as he’d suggested in his Tuesday tweet. Declines over the past two days have erased the jump in the share price following his statement that he’d secured funding for taking the company private.

Musk has offered no evidence to back up the assertion, and there have been no public announcements that anyone is backing the plan.

“I don’t really understand the idea of what was suggested in the potential for them to go private,” Dick Weil, CEO of Janus Henderson Group, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “That’s obviously an incredibly large valuation to somehow take into the private market.”

The SEC scrutiny adds to pressure on Musk, who has a history of setting sales targets that bulls consider to be aggressive and bears contend are unrealistic. The question for regulators is whether any of his public statements or the company’s run afoul of federal securities laws. Generally, the SEC considers statements by executives to be material information that have to be true.

Speculation has been swirling around Tesla and Musk’s disclosures amid the yearlong struggle the company had ramping up production of the Model 3 sedan, the first vehicle that the company has attempted to mass manufacture.

One analyst asked during an earnings call earlier this month whether Tesla had received a notice from a regulator that would prevent the company from raising capital. Musk, who’s insisted for months that the company wouldn’t need to seek more funding this year, replied: “I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but there’s no such notice from a regulator.”

Reed Hastings

The SEC first ruled on the use of social media for disclosing material information after Netflix Inc. CEO Reed Hastings wrote in a July 2012 Facebook post that views on his company’s video-streaming service had “exceeded 1 billion hours for the first time.” The regulator later determined that Hastings wouldn’t face enforcement action and declared most social media “perfectly suitable” for communicating company information as long as investors are alerted and access isn’t restricted.

The SEC routinely makes inquiries about companies’ activities. In cases where wrongdoing is suspected, an initial review might lead to a formal investigation that could result in companies or individuals being subjected to enforcement action.

Musk’s initial post on a possible buyout probably wouldn’t be enough to put him in legal jeopardy unless it proved to be false or inaccurate, according to securities lawyers.

Tesla hasn’t disclosed any sources of financing for the deal and no one has stepped forward publicly to say they’re backing a buyout. On Wednesday, less than 24 hours after Musk’s initial tweets, company board members said they started discussing the idea with him last week.

See https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/08/09/tesla-is-said-to-face-broader-sec-scrutiny-over-musk-statements#gs.c2AHKZI (“The SEC Is Intensifying Its Probe of Tesla“) (emphasis added)

As stated previously, Musk is bipolar, and a con man not unlike Bernie Madoff. At the very least, Tesla will implode as the DeLorean and Edsel did before it.

The reasons are compelling and irrefutable, as demonstrated in the comments and cites at the following link.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“)

19 08 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Are Elon Musk And Tesla Imploding? [UPDATED]

Tesla fail

As discussed previously, Tesla’s founder Musk is bipolar, which can be very serious, with devastating mental and physical deterioration over time, and no long-term viable treatments or cure. The condition can become far worse when the individual “self medicates” with alcohol and/or prescription and non-prescription drugs.

At the very least, there are reasons to believe that Tesla is imploding, with the signs being present for some time now.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14477 (“FEDS INTENSIFY TESLA PROBE“)

David Gelles, James B. Stewart, Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Kate Kelly have written for the New York Times:

Elon Musk was at home in Los Angeles, struggling to maintain his composure. “This past year has been the most difficult and painful year of my career,” he said. “It was excruciating.”

The year has only gotten more intense for Mr. Musk, the chairman and chief executive of the electric-car maker Tesla, since he abruptly declared on Twitter last week that he hoped to convert the publicly traded company into a private one. The episode kicked off a furor in the markets and within Tesla itself, and he acknowledged on Thursday that he was fraying.

In an hourlong interview with The New York Times, he choked up multiple times, noting that he nearly missed his brother’s wedding this summer and spent his birthday holed up in Tesla’s offices as the company raced to meet elusive production targets on a crucial new model.

Asked if the exhaustion was taking a toll on his physical health, Mr. Musk answered: “It’s not been great, actually. I’ve had friends come by who are really concerned.”

The events set in motion by Mr. Musk’s tweet have ignited a federal investigation and have angered some board members, according to people familiar with the matter. Efforts are underway to find a No. 2 executive to help take some of the pressure off Mr. Musk, people briefed on the search said. And some board members have expressed concern not only about Mr. Musk’s workload but also about his use of Ambien, two people familiar with the board said.

For two decades, Mr. Musk has been one of Silicon Valley’s most brash and ambitious entrepreneurs, helping to found several influential technology companies. He has often carried himself with bravado, dismissing critics and relishing the spotlight that has come with his success and fortune. But in the interview, he demonstrated an extraordinary level of self-reflection and vulnerability, acknowledging that his myriad executive responsibilities are taking a steep personal toll.

In the interview, Mr. Musk provided a detailed timeline of the events leading up to the Twitter postings on Aug. 7 in which he said he was considering taking the company private at $420 a share. He asserted that he had “funding secured” for such a deal — a transaction likely to be worth well over $10 billion.

That morning, Mr. Musk woke up at home with his girlfriend, the musician known as Grimes, and had an early workout. Then he got in a Tesla Model S and drove himself to the airport. En route, Mr. Musk typed his fateful message.

Mr. Musk has said he saw the tweet as an attempt at transparency. He acknowledged Thursday that no one had seen or reviewed it before he posted it.

Tesla’s shares soared. Investors, analysts and journalists puzzled over the tweet — published in the middle of the day’s official market trading, an unusual time to release major news — including the price Mr. Musk cited. He said in the interview that he wanted to offer a roughly 20 percent premium over where the stock had been recently trading, which would have been about $419. He decided to round up to $420 — a number that has become code for marijuana in counterculture lore.

“It seemed like better karma at $420 than at $419,” he said in the interview. “But I was not on weed, to be clear. Weed is not helpful for productivity. There’s a reason for the word ‘stoned.’ You just sit there like a stone on weed.”

Mr. Musk reached the airport and flew on a private plane to Nevada, where he spent the day visiting a Tesla battery plant known as the Gigafactory, including time meeting with managers and working on an assembly line. That evening, he flew to the San Francisco Bay Area, where he held Tesla meetings late into the night.

What Mr. Musk meant by “funding secured” has become an important question. Those two words helped propel Tesla’s shares higher.

But that funding, it turned out, was far from secure.

Mr. Musk has said he was referring to a potential investment by Saudi Arabia’s government investment fund. Mr. Musk had extensive talks with representatives of the $250 billion fund about possibly financing a transaction to take Tesla private — maybe even in a manner that would have resulted in the Saudis’ owning most of the company. One of those sessions took place on July 31 at the Tesla factory in the Bay Area, according to a person familiar with the meeting. But the Saudi fund had not committed to provide any cash, two people briefed on the discussions said.

Another possibility under consideration is that SpaceX, Mr. Musk’s rocket company, would help bankroll the Tesla privatization and would take an ownership stake in the carmaker, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Musk’s tweet kicked off a chain reaction.

An hour and 20 minutes after the tweet, with Tesla’s shares up 7 percent, the Nasdaq stock exchange halted trading, and Tesla published a letter to employees from Mr. Musk explaining the rationale for possibly taking the company private. When the shares resumed trading, they continued their climb, ending the day with an 11 percent gain.

The next day, investigators in the San Francisco office of the Securities and Exchange Commission asked Tesla for explanations. Ordinarily, such material information about a public company’s plans is laid out in detail after extensive internal preparation and issued through official channels. Board members, blindsided by the chief executive’s market-moving statement, were angry that they had not been briefed, two people familiar with the matter said. They scrambled to cobble together a public statement trying to defuse a mounting uproar over the seemingly haphazard communication.

Mr. Musk said in the interview that board members had not complained to him about his tweet. “I don’t recall getting any communications from the board at all,” he said. “I definitely did not get calls from irate directors.”

But shortly after the Times published its interview with Mr. Musk, he added through a Tesla spokeswoman that Antonio Gracias, Tesla’s lead independent director, had indeed contacted him to discuss the Aug. 7 Twitter post, and that he had agreed not to tweet again about the possible privatization deal unless he had discussed it with the board.

In the interview, Mr. Musk added that he did not regret his Twitter post — “Why would I?” — and said he had no plans to stop using the social media platform. Some board members, however, have recently told Mr. Musk that he should lay off Twitter and focus on making cars and launching rockets, according to people familiar with the matter.

The S.E.C. investigation appears to be intensifying rapidly. Just days after the agency’s request for information, Tesla’s board and Mr. Musk received S.E.C. subpoenas, according to a person familiar with the matter. Board members and Mr. Musk are preparing to meet with S.E.C. officials as soon as next week, the person said.

In the interview on Thursday, Mr. Musk alternated between laughter and tears.

He said he had been working up to 120 hours a week recently — echoing the reason he cited in a recent public apology to an analyst whom he had berated. In the interview, Mr. Musk said he had not taken more than a week off since 2001, when he was bedridden with malaria.

“There were times when I didn’t leave the factory for three or four days — days when I didn’t go outside,” he said. “This has really come at the expense of seeing my kids. And seeing friends.”

Mr. Musk stopped talking, seemingly overcome by emotion.

He turned 47 on June 28, and he said he spent the full 24 hours of his birthday at work. “All night — no friends, nothing,” he said, struggling to get the words out.

Two days later, he was scheduled to be the best man at the wedding of his brother, Kimbal, in Catalonia. Mr. Musk said he flew directly there from the factory, arriving just two hours before the ceremony. Immediately afterward, he got back on the plane and returned straight to Tesla headquarters, where work on the mass-market Model 3 has been all consuming.

Mr. Musk paused again.

“I thought the worst of it was over — I thought it was,” he said. “The worst is over from a Tesla operational standpoint.” He continued: “But from a personal pain standpoint, the worst is yet to come.”

He blamed short-sellers — investors who bet that Tesla’s shares will lose value — for much of his stress. He said he was bracing for “at least a few months of extreme torture from the short-sellers, who are desperately pushing a narrative that will possibly result in Tesla’s destruction.”

Referring to the short-sellers, he added: “They’re not dumb guys, but they’re not supersmart. They’re O.K. They’re smartish.”

[Short-sellers made $1 billion as Tesla stock dropped 9 percent on Friday.]

Mr. Musk’s tweets on Aug. 7 were the most recent of several flare-ups that had drawn scrutiny. He wrangled with short-sellers and belittled analysts for asking “boring, bonehead” questions. And after sending a team of engineers from one of his companies to help rescue members of a stranded soccer team, he lashed out at a cave diver who was dismissive of the gesture, deriding him on Twitter as a “pedo guy,” or pedophile.

To help sleep when he is not working, Mr. Musk said he sometimes takes Ambien. “It is often a choice of no sleep or Ambien,” he said.

But this has worried some board members, who have noted that sometimes the drug does not put Mr. Musk to sleep but instead contributes to late-night Twitter sessions, according to a person familiar with the board’s thinking. Some board members are also aware that Mr. Musk has on occasion used recreational drugs, according to people familiar with the matter.

Tesla executives have been trying for years to recruit a chief operating officer or other No. 2 executive to assume some of Mr. Musk’s day-to-day responsibilities, according to people familiar with the matter. A couple of years ago, Mr. Musk said, the company approached Sheryl Sandberg, who is Facebook’s second-highest executive, about the job.

Mr. Musk said that “to the best of my knowledge,” there is “no active search right now.” But people familiar with the matter said a search is underway, and one person said it had intensified in the wake of Mr. Musk’s tweets.

[The Tesla board “now must ask a sensitive but vital question,” our columnist writes. “What was Mr. Musk’s state of mind” when he tweeted?]

In response to questions for this article, Tesla provided a statement that it attributed to its board, excluding Elon Musk. “There have been many false and irresponsible rumors in the press about the discussions of the Tesla board,” the statement said. “We would like to make clear that Elon’s commitment and dedication to Tesla is obvious. Over the past 15 years, Elon’s leadership of the Tesla team has caused Tesla to grow from a small start-up to having hundreds of thousands of cars on the road that customers love, employing tens of thousands of people around the world, and creating significant shareholder value in the process.”

Mr. Musk said he had no plans to relinquish his dual roles as chairman and chief executive.

But, he added, “if you have anyone who can do a better job, please let me know. They can have the job. Is there someone who can do the job better? They can have the reins right now.”

See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/business/elon-musk-interview-tesla.html (“Musk Details ‘Excruciating’ Personal Toll of Tesla Turmoil“) (emphasis added; Tweet omitted); see also https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/business/elon-musk-interview-tesla.html (“Elon Musk Confronts a Fateful Tweet and an ‘Excruciating’ Year”) and https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/17/tesla-tumbles-3point5-percent-ahead-of-elon-musks-reported-meeting-with-sec.html (“Tesla shares are getting slammed after Elon Musk’s off-kilter interview with the NYT“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6070421/Elon-Musk-asks-Tesla-job-tearful-interview.html (“Elon Musk asks for someone to take his Tesla job in tearful interview“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6073055/Elon-Musk-DID-meet-Azealia-Banks.html (“Elon Musk DID meet Azealia Banks“) and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/business/azealia-banks-elon-musk.html (“Weekend at Elon’s: A Tesla Subplot With Azealia Banks”) and https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/tesla-insiders-say-its-a-s-tshow-under-beleaguered-elon-musk/ (“Tesla insiders say ‘it’s a shitshow’ under beleaguered Elon Musk“) and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-ignores-tesla-board-and-keeps-tweeting/ (“Elon Musk repeats ‘pedophile’ accusations against man who’s getting ready to sue him“) and https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-brands-british-diver-060310514.html (“Elon Musk brands British diver in Thai rescue a ‘child rapist’ as feud escalates“) and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-germany-daimler-mercedes/mercedes-unveils-electric-car-in-direct-german-challenge-to-tesla-idUSKCN1LK26G (“Mercedes unveils electric car in direct German challenge to Tesla“) and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-tesla/tesla-bond-hits-record-low-stock-slips-as-investor-worry-deepens-idUSKCN1LL2Z2 (“Tesla bond hits record low, stock slips as investor worry deepens“)

Wow! Is the world watching the failures of the DeLorean and Edsel repeated with Musk and Tesla, this time on steroids? Two slow-motion train wrecks?

4 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Is General Motors Failing Again? [UPDATED]

GM fails

As I wrote in comments above:

[T]he threshold sign that General Motors may be in trouble is that it stopped reporting monthly sales back in April.

As many of us know who follow such figures, the Wall Street Journal stopped publishing them because of GM. Indeed, it announced at the top of its reporting page:

NOTICE TO READERS: Due to General Motor’s decision to end monthly sale reporting, Motor Intelligence will no longer produce a monthly Auto sales report. Our source may provide a quarterly report, but at this time a decision has not been made.

See http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesE (“Auto Sales“)

This was a drastic decision by GM’s management, which reported such figures during the last auto sales crisis. Will the next one be far worse for GM; and is it telegraphing that result now? Will Fiat Chrysler survive, while GM fails—again?

Hold on tight. GM’s ride may be rough at best.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14324

Rachit Vats and Ankit Ajmera have written for Reuters:

Top automakers pointed to a small increase in U.S. auto sales in August including another sharp rise in SUV sales, as low unemployment and strong consumer confidence helped mitigate the impact of rising interest rates and fuel prices.

The reports from Ford Motor Co (F.N) and other top carmakers follow a rise in consumer confidence to a near 18-year high which allayed fears about the impact of President Trump’s protectionist trade policy on sentiment.

Analysts said the results were roughly on track to meet Reuters-compiled consensus forecasts for the annualized pace of U.S. car and light truck sales of 16.8 million units for the month, compared to 16.6 million a year ago.

Ford, the No.2 U.S. automaker, sold 218,504 vehicles in August, compared with 209,897 a year ago, when Labor Day sales efforts were marred by the arrival of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

The rise included a 20.1 percent surge in sales of sport utility vehicles while pickup truck sales rose 5.7 percent.

Ford’s head of US Marketing, Mark LaNeve, said annualized seasonally adjusted U.S. car and light truck sales (SAAR) were between 17.0 million and 17.4 million in August, including medium and heavy trucks which typically make up around 300,000 units.

“The overall health of the consumer is very strong right now, which provides a solid base for our industry,” LaNeve said.

“On an absolute basis, we estimate overall industry sales to be flat, but it could make it up as high as being up 1 percent while we’re still pulling in some of the numbers.”

U.S. auto sales dropped 2 percent last year from a record 17.55 million in 2016 as consumers shifted away from traditional passenger cars toward larger, more comfortable SUVs and pickup trucks, which are also more profitable for automakers.

Ford said earlier this year it would gradually cease production of most passenger cars in the United States. Its new Navigator SUV had an average transaction price of $84,000, up $30,000 a year ago when the previous design was being sold. The company sold 1,522 of the large SUVs last month, up from 755 in the same period last year.

Rival Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), which has a larger share of cheaper passenger vehicles, said its U.S. sales had fallen 2 percent to 223,055 vehicles in August. Its SUV sales rose 8.9 percent.

General Motors (GM.N), the No. 1 U.S. automaker, no longer reports monthly sales. Industry analysts last week estimated GM sales fell about 8.5 percent in August.

Fiat Chrysler (FCHA.MI) said U.S. sales were up 10 percent to 193,718 vehicles in August, led by Jeep and Ram.

The U.S. jobs market is viewed as being near or at full employment, helping to support consumer spending and boost the overall economy.

Yet many analysts are forecasting weaker auto sales for the second half of 2018 and further declines in U.S. vehicle demand next year.

Ford’s Senior Americas Economist Bryan Bezold said that US industry sales could go higher but were more likely to plateau where they are now.

“Overall, the data suggests continued economic growth in the second half, albeit with the signs of increasing price pressures,” he said.

“Economic conditions remain broadly supportive of vehicle sales around the recent run rate as we head into traditionally strong retail SAAR month later in the year.”

Honda Motor Co Ltd’s (7267.T) U.S. sales rose 1.3 percent in August to 147,903 units, lead by a roughly 19 percent increase in sales of SUVs including CR-V and Odyssey minivans.

Nissan Group’s August sales rose about 4 percent to 112,376 vehicles, helped by higher sales of crossovers such as Murano and Rogue.

See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-auto-sales/u-s-suv-sales-surge-again-in-august-idUSKCN1LK1K0?il=0 (“U.S. SUV sales surge again in August“) (emphasis added; charts omitted); see also https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2018&no=556469 (“GM Korea’s auto sales dip 44.1% on year in August“)

This time, there must be NO BAILOUT for GM.

7 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Is The End Near For Elon Musk And Tesla? [UPDATED]

Elon Musk

Sara Malm has reported for the UK’s Daily Mail:

Tesla shares have plunged this morning after Elon Musk smoked marijuana and drank whiskey while discussing everything from drugs to the possibility we’re all living in a simulation, in a rambling two-and-a-half hour podcast appearance which was live-streamed on YouTube.

The 47-year-old billionaire went on the Joe Rogan Experience late on Thursday night and accepted a joint from the host – after a rambling conversation that also took in the dangers of AI and the possibility China is spying on US citizens through their phones.

Hours later, the company’s chief accounting officer Dave Morton resigned citing ‘public attention’ on the company.

Meanwhile, shares plummeted to nine per cent this morning, wiping $4.3 billion off the company’s value. By 1pm Eastern the shares had recovered to seven per cent down for the day.

It follows weeks of serious turbulence for both Musk and Tesla, after he falsely announced he was taking the company private in a deal with Saudi Arabia and accused a British hero diver of being a paedophile.

Friday is also the last day for VP of Communications Sarah O’Brien and HR head Gabrielle Toledano, both of whom have been off work, on leave.

Toledano’s departure was announced on Friday, while O’Brien announced her departure two weeks ago.

Tesla shares, down just one percent after Musk’s appearance on the Rogan podcast, fell another seven percent in the half hour after the resignation of Chief Accounting Officer Dave Morton, and then to nine per cent, before recovering slightly to down close to seven per cent.

Morton gave notice on Tuesday that he was resigning, according to a filing on Friday.

‘Since I joined Tesla on August 6, the level of public attention placed on the company, as well as the pace within the company, have exceeded my expectations,’ Morton said in the securities filing.

‘As a result, this caused me to reconsider my future. I want to be clear that I believe strongly in Tesla, its mission, and its future prospects, and I have no disagreements with Tesla’s leadership or its financial reporting.’

Before the news broke of his executives departures, Musk, who has openly admitted to relying on sleeping pill Ambien, told Rogan on Thursday night that Tesla keeps him up at night, adding ‘it’s very difficult to keep a car company alive.’

Towards the end of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, the host lit a ‘cigar’ rolled with both tobacco and marijuana – a drug which is legal in the state of California – and offered it to Musk.

‘You probably can’t do this because of stockholders, right?,’ Rogan asks Musk.

Musk, who earlier joked that mushrooms – both a harmless fungi and an psychedelic drug – are ‘delicious’, clarified that the drug is legal, and was seen taking a puff on the joint before handing it back.

‘I’m not a regular smoker of weed. Almost never,’ he told Rogan.

‘I don’t actually notice any effect. I know a lot of people like weed, and that’s fine, however I don’t find it’s very good for productivity.’

The 2.5 hour long podcast began with Musk and Rogan discussing his dream of solving traffic problems in Los Angeles by building a tunnel underneath the city – a project which he has already embarked on – and artificial intelligence.

Rogan asked Musk if he is ‘honestly and legitimately’ concerned about AI and the future of robotics, to which Musk replied ‘yes, but it’s less of a worry than it used to be.’

‘It’s not necessarily bad, but it’s definitely going to be outside of human control,’ before speaking of the danger of using AI being used as a weapon and a future where humans will be able to become part-robots: cyborgs.

‘You’re already a cyborg, and most people don’t even realise. That phone [in your hand] is an extension of yourself.’

Upon pouring themselves a generous whiskey, Musk said he had met former President Obama ‘for one reason’ and that was to warn him about the danger of artificial intelligence.

He also spoke to the host about growing up and realizing at the age of five that he was different.

‘I thought I was insane,’ Musk said, explaining that he had kept his ‘never-ending explosion of ideas’ a secret for fear of being ‘taken away’ by authorities.

The billionaire also joked with Rogen that the reason why he is able to come up with inventions such as Tesla and roof-tiles with built-in solar cells is because he is ‘an alien’.

He was also asked if he believes in the possibility of alternate realities and multiverses, to which he replied that ‘we are most likely in a simulation, because we exist.’

I think most likely there are many, many simulations. You might as well call them reality, or you could call them multiverse.’

Musk also passed comment on the recent ban on phones from Chinese company Huawei, which applies to anyone working for the US government or a government contractor over fears of spying.

While he acknowledged that anyone working with ‘top secret stuff’ ought to be careful with their choice of hardware, he said it was not something ‘most people’ should worry about.

‘Nobody really cares what porn you watch! National spy agencies do not give a rats a** what porn you watch – they do not care. ‘

Later on, Musk, who recently who recently accused a British diver who helped rescue the 12 Thai boys stuck in a cave of being a paedophile, spoke about kindness.

‘Be nicer to each other. Don’t assume someone is mean. It’s easy to demonize people.’

Earlier this week, Mr Musk suggested in emails to a BuzzFeed journalist that diver Vernon Unsworth was a ‘child rapist’.

Musk also claimed, without providing any evidence, that Mr Unsworth had moved to northern Thailand to take ‘a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.’

The Tesla CEO’s attacks on Mr Unsworth, whose efforts were considered crucial to the Thai operation, came after the British diver criticized a well-publicized effort by Musk to lend a custom-built mini-submarine to the cave rescue effort.

Mr Musk responded on Twitter with comments strongly implying that the Briton was a pedophile. He then apologised for this, before repeating the claims this week.

During the podcast, Musk was asked what percentage of his interactions with other people on Twitter was a good idea, with Rogan suggesting ‘ten per cent’.

Musk replied that ‘it’s on balance more good than bad, but there is definitely some bad’.

He later added: ‘It’s way easier to be mean on social media than it is to be mean in person.’

Mr Unsworth, from St Albans in Hertfordshire has, through his lawyer, made it clear that he will be suing Musk over his comments.

‘Elon Musk´s ongoing campaign of publishing vile and false accusations against Mr. Unsworth is outrageous,’ Unsworth’s lawyer, L. Lin Wood, said in an email to Reuters.

‘Musk has publicly and clearly stated that he `hopes´ to be sued. Let me be equally clear in response – Musk will be sued – not because of his hopes, but because he deserves to be sued,’ Wood said.

Musk’s renewed attack on Mr Unsworth, his appearance on the show and his top accountant resigning on Friday saw Tesla’s stock and bond prices drop even further today.

During the podcast, Musk revealed that the one thing that keeps him up at night is his electrical car company.

‘Its quite hard to run companies. Especially car companies. It’s quite challenging. Space X is no walk in the park, but it’s very difficult to keep a car company alive.

‘There is only two car companies in the history of American car companies that haven’t gone bankrupt and that’s Ford and Tesla. That’s it. We barely survived.

Rogan asked him how close Tesla had gotten to ‘folding’, to which Musk admitted it had been ‘very close’.

The $1.8 billion high-yield bond Tesla issued a year ago hit a record low price on Wednesday. It also became more expensive to insure Tesla’s bonds against default.

Tesla’s stock has lost more than a quarter of its value since August 7, when Musk tweeted that he had secured funding for a previously undisclosed plan to take Tesla private.

Musk [] abandoned that plan on August 24, but he faces lawsuits and a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the factual accuracy of his tweet that funding for the deal was ‘secured.’

The incident is weighing on investor confidence and has hurt the credibility of Musk, long viewed by Tesla supporters as its most valuable asset.

A lawsuit was filed on Thursday accusing Musk of trying to ‘burn’ short-sellers through his false tweet that funding had been secured to take Tesla private.

‘This appears to be a textbook case of fraud,’ Michael Canty of law firm Labaton Sucharow said in a press release.

‘We believe Musk attempted to manipulate the price of Tesla securities with false and misleading tweets, in a directed effort to harm short-sellers.’

Labaton Sucharow is asking for class action status to represent anyone who bought or sold Tesla shares between August 7 and August 17.

Musk has described the infamous privatization tweet – including his assurance that funding for going private was secured – as an attempt to be transparent.

_________

MUSK’S MUSINGS: BILLIONAIRE’S BEST QUOTES FROM THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE PODCAST

On why he comes up with innovations and runs his companies:

Musk: ‘I’m an alien!

Discussing the possibility we are living in an alternate reality and a ‘multiverse’.

Musk: ‘If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then games will be indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will end. One of those two things will occur.

‘Therefore, we are most likely in a simulation, because we exist.

‘I think most likely, this is just about probability, there are many, many simulations.

‘You might as well call them reality, or you could call them multiverse.

On social media:

Musk: ‘Be nicer to each other. Don’t assume someone is mean. It’s easy to demonize people.’

Musk: ‘It’s way easier to be mean on social media than it is to be mean in person.’

Musk: ‘On balance [my Twitter interactions are] more good than bad, but there is definitely some bad’.

Musk: ‘The vast number of negative comments, the vast majority of them I just ignore them. Every now and again I get drawn in, it’s not good. I make some mistakes.’

Rogan: ‘What could potentially be holding the company [Tesla] back? Anything you’d change

Musk: ‘I wish politicians were better at science. That would help a lot. They [politicians] are pretty good at science in China, I have to say.’

On stopping use of Huawei phones because of risk of China spying on US citizens:

Musk: ‘If you have, like, top secret stuff, you wanna be careful with what hardware you use, but most people don’t have top secret stuff. Nobody really cares what porn you watch! Nobody really cares. National spy agencies do not give a rats a** what porn you watch, they do not care. ‘

Rogan: ‘You know what could help, mushrooms.’

Musk: ‘They’re delicious.’

Rogan: ‘What keeps you up at night?’

Musk: ‘Its quite hard to run companies. Especially car companies. It’s quite challenging. Space X is no walk in the park but a car company, it’s very difficult to keep a car company alive.

‘You know, there is only two car companies in the history of American car companies that haven’t gone bankrupt and that’s Ford and Tesla. That’s it. We barely survived. ‘

Rogan: ‘How close did you get to folding?’

Musk: ‘Very close. 2008 is not a good time to be a car company, especially an electric car company, that was like stupidity squared. ‘

After puffing on the joint given to him by Rogan:

Musk: ‘I’m getting text messages from friends asking me ‘what the hell are you doing smoking weed?’.

‘I’m not a regular smoker of weed. Almost never. I don’t actually notice any effect. I know a lot of people like weed, and that’s fine, however, I don’t find it’s very good for productivity.’

‘It’s like a cup of coffee in reverse. I like to get things done. I like to be useful.’

Musk: ‘You’re already a cyborg, and most people don’t even realise. That phone [in your hand] is an extension of yourself.’

Rogan: ‘I don’t know how you manage your time, it doesn’t seem humanly possible?’

Musk: I think people don’t totally understand what I do with my time, they think I’m like, a business guy, I think even my Wikipedia page says business magnate.’

Rogan: What would you call yourself?

Musk: ‘A business magnet.’

On sustainable energy and the environment

Musk: ‘We’re really playing a crazy game here with the atmosphere and the oceans. We’re taking vast amounts of carbon from deep underground and putting this, putting this in the atmosphere, this is crazy.

‘We should not do this. It’s very dangerous. We should accelerate the transition to sustainable energy.

‘I mean the bizarre thing is that obviously we’re going to run out of oil in the long term. There’s only so much oil we can mine and burn. That’s totally logical, we must have a sustainable energy transport and energy infrastructure in the long term.

‘So we know that’s the end point, we know that. So why run this crazy experiment where we take trillions of tons of carbon from underground and put it in the atmosphere and oceans. This is an insane experiment. It’s the dumbest experiment in human history. Why are we doing this, it’s crazy.’

On why he isn’t building electrical sustainable energy airplanes:

Musk: ‘Electric cars are important, solar energy is important, stationary storage of energy is important.

‘These things are much more important than creating electric supersonic VTOL[vertical take-off and landing planes].’

Musk: The trick [with VTOL] is that you have to transition to level flight. The thing you’d use for vertical takeoff and landing is not suitable for high speed flight.

‘The interesting thing about an electric plane is that you want to go as high as possible, but you need a certain energy density in the battery pack, because you have to overcome gravitational potential energy.

‘ Once you’ve overcome gravitational potential energy and you’re at a high altitude, the energy you use in cruise is very low, and then you can recapture a large part of your gravitational potential energy on the way down. So you really don’t need any kind of reserve fuel.’

On fossil fuels:

Musk: ‘It is the dumbest experiment in history’

Musk: ‘I really think people should give other people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are good until proven otherwise and most people are actually pretty good people. Nobody is perfect.’

On flying cars

Musk: ‘If you get one of those toy drones and imagine it’s 1,000 times heavier – that’s not going to make your neighbors happy.

‘If you want a flying car, just put wheels on a helicopter.’

On his plans to eliminate traffic jams in Los Angeles

Musk: ‘I have this, it’s sort of a hobby company, called the Boring Company, which started out as a joke.

‘And we decided to make it real, and dig a tunnel under LA. And then other people asked us to build tunnels so we said yes in a few cases.’

Musk: ‘I’m not saying it’s going to be successful. It’s not, like, asserting it’s going to be successful. But so far I’ve lived in LA for 16 years and the traffic has always been terrible. And so I don’t see any other ideas for improving the traffic.

‘So in desperation, we are going to build a tunnel, and maybe that tunnel will be successful. And maybe it won’t.

‘I’m not trying to convince you it’s going to work. Or anyone.’

On his new company ‘Neuralink’ trying to connect human brains straight to a computer.

Musk: ‘I think we’ll have something interesting to announce in a few months.. that’s better than anyone thinks is possible.’

Musk: ‘Best case scenario, we [humans] effectively merge with AI.’

Musk: ‘How much smarter are you with a phone or computer or without? You’re vastly smarter, actually.

You can answer any question pretty much instantly. You can remember flawlessly. Your phone can remember videos [and] pictures perfectly. Your phone is already an extension of you.

‘You’re already a cyborg. Most people don’t realize you’re already a cyborg. It’s just that the data rate.. it’s slow, very slow. It’s like a tiny straw of information flow between your biological self and your digital self.

‘We need to make that tiny straw like a giant river, a huge, high-bandwidth interface.’

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6142193/Elon-Musk-smokes-JOINT-live-Joe-Rogan-Experience-podcast.html (“Tesla shares plunge NINE PERCENT- wiping $4.3BILLION off the company value – after Elon Musk’s wild pot-smoking, whiskey-drinking rambling podcast and company’s top accountant quits“) (emphasis added; charts and video omitted); see also https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-07/tesla-tumbles-after-chief-accounting-officer-quits-after-just-one-month (“Chaos Erupts At Tesla: Stock Crashes, Bonds Implode After Heads Of Accounting, HR Quit“) and https://www.yahoo.com/news/teslas-musk-smokes-marijuana-comedy-podcast-112350685–finance.html (“Tesla rocked by executive departures, Musk web show“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14554 (“Are Elon Musk And Tesla Imploding?“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“) and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-18/tesla-is-said-to-face-u-s-criminal-probe-over-musk-statements (“Tesla Facing U.S. Criminal Probe Over Elon Musk Statements“)

Musk is “different” because he is bipolar.

The end seems near for Tesla and him, and apparently he knows it.

Tesla fail

10 09 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Sheer Madness Of California’s Eco-Nazis

A Wall Street Journal editorial has stated:

Most states are enjoying flat or declining electricity rates thanks to shale fracking, which has sent natural gas prices plummeting. But not California, where rates have jumped 25% since 2013. Electricity prices in the Golden State are by far the highest in the continental western U.S. and twice as high as in Washington state.

The reason: California requires that 50% of power be generated from renewables such as solar and wind by 2030. Democrats recently passed legislation establishing a 100% requirement for 2045. Even Governor Jerry Brown ought to realize this energy experiment will punish Californians who can’t afford to live in Marin or Malibu.

Renewable prices have dropped thanks to technological improvements and cheap Chinese solar panel imports. The wholesale price of solar energy with the 30% federal tax credit is now nearly comparable to fossil fuels. But renewables impose other costs.

Start with backup power, which is needed when the sun isn’t shining. A 100% mandate would require natural gas plants that currently provide backup power—many recently constructed—to be retired and replaced with enormous batteries. Customers will pay for the stranded plants and the batteries, which will have to be replaced periodically.

Even batteries probably won’t capture all of the surplus solar energy pouring onto the grid on sunny days. So the state will have to find another outlet to avoid overloading the grid. In recent years California has paid Arizona to absorb its excess energy.

Then there are the state subsidies for renewable energy. Home and business owners that install solar panels can receive rebates and are paid the retail power rate for the excess energy they transmit to the grid, which increases the costs for everybody else. Most large-scale solar and wind farms are located in rural regions while natural gas plants are close to population centers along the coast. The cost to build and run power transmission lines from renewable plants is higher.

Managing the grid and balancing power sources will also become far more complicated and costly as renewable generation grows. Fellow sun-worshipper Australia provides a cautionary example.

In South Australia, wind and solar account for nearly 40% of power, which has caused rates to soar. South Australians pay more than three times as much for power than the average American. After storms felled transmission lines and caused power outages, the South Australian government tapped Tesla to build a battery the size of a football field capable of powering 30,000 homes for an hour to provide backup power in emergencies.

Tesla and the South Australian government have declined to disclose the battery cost. But the Electrek news site reported in January that Australia’s battery owners were paid 79 cents per kilowatt-hour—about 10 times the wholesale cost of power in the U.S.—to absorb surplus energy from the grid. That power can later be sold at a premium during shortages. Customers get charged twice—once for storing the excess power and then for discharging it.

California’s low-income residents will suffer the most since they spend more of their income on energy and live in hotter inland areas where more electricity is required for cooling. Workers in energy-intensive industries like manufacturing would be especially hard hit. Manufacturing employment has grown half as fast in California as nationwide since 2010.

***

All of this explains why a dozen Democrats in the state Assembly, most from low-income and minority areas, rebelled against the 100% renewable bill. “This is yet another in a laundry list of bills that are discriminatory to the people I represent,” said Adam Gray of Merced.

California’s power generation accounts for less than 0.2% of global CO2 emissions, so the mandate won’t matter to the climate. But green groups are hoping California’s fossil-fuel purge will coax politicians elsewhere to follow. Democrats running for Governor in Colorado, Florida, Illinois and Maryland have endorsed a 100% renewable mandate. Presidential aspirants Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders have introduced legislation in the Senate setting a nationwide 100% renewable target.

Governor Brown would be wise to veto the bill. As an alternative, he’s promoting a plan to integrate California’s grid with other western states to minimize the costs of its renewable binge. But the liberals who dominate state politics would apparently rather make poor people pay more for energy so they can pretend they’re saving the planet.

See https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-certifiable-california-1536532039 (“100% Certifiable California“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/the-death-of-new-york-city/#comment-14512 (“A Predictable Train Wreck: California’s Bullet-Train Boondoggle“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-14409 (“Eco-Nazis: Join Us in Supporting Straws On Request“)

California is going farther and farther off the “deep end,” and hurting its poor in the process.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/poverty-in-america/#comment-11773 (“CALIFORNIA LEADS THE NATION IN POVERTY“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/the-death-of-new-york-city/#comment-14019 (“THE DEATH OF SAN FRANCISCO?“); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/poverty-in-america/#comment-14390 (“VEHICULAR HOMELESSNESS“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/earthquakes-the-big-one-is-coming-to-at-least-los-angeles/#comment-14537 (“San Francisco Is Not Ready For The Next Big One“)

And what happens when an EMP Attack occurs?

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive“)

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.




%d bloggers like this: